Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Hanningfield jury told expenses rules were 'ambiguous'

  • Comment

There was “ambiguity” in expenses rules for peers, the chief of the House of Lords administration has admitted, with no need for members to provide proof of what they had spent.

Michael Pownall, former Clerk of the Parliaments, told Chelmsford Crown Court that there was some confusion about how much members were actually allowed to claim.

Lord Hanningfield

Giving evidence at the trial of former Essex CC leader Lord Hanningfield, who is accused of falsely claiming parliamentary expenses, Mr Pownall said: “There was a lack of clarity about how much members could claim within the maximum amounts fixed.

“I still believe that members regarded it as a reimbursement system but without any requirement to put in invoices it was their decision as to how much to claim.”

He later added: “There was ambiguity and uncertainties in the amounts which members could claim, I certainly accept that.”

In cross-examination, defence counsel Alun Jones QC claimed that many peers regarded daily expense limits as allowances to which they were entitled, regardless of what they had spent.

He quoted a 2008 internal review which found: “In practice over the years the [expenses] scheme has been used to generate an income for some peers.” This meant that they were claiming more money back than they had actually paid out.

The vast majority of peers were claiming the maximum allowance for accommodation, subsistence and travel, the jury was told, but were not required to provide receipts to prove their outlay.

Mr Pownall said: “I had no reason to investigate because it was a system without receipts or invoices…I took the system as it was.”

However, in re-examination prosecutor Clare Montgomery QC asked him: “Was there any ambiguity about whether travel was a reimbursement scheme…or a general allowance which you could use for anything?

Mr Pownall said: “It was to pay back what you spent.”

She also asked: “Was there any ambiguity in relation to the rule that you could only claim night subsistence for nights you spent in London?”

He replied: “No, no ambiguity.”

Earlier the court heard from other members of House of Lords staff, who explained that travel expense claims were only checked against mileage information that the peers themselves had provided.

The 70-year-old denies six counts of false accounting.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.