Tory Peer Faces Fresh Suspension Over Expenses Misconduct
Campaigners have condemned as excessively lenient the punishment handed to a Conservative hereditary peer who has been found to have breached House of Lords regulations for the second time. The Earl of Shrewsbury, whose full name is Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, is set to be suspended from the upper chamber for two weeks following an investigation into his expenses claims.
Unacceptable Casual Approach to Public Funds
In a report published this week, the House of Lords concluded that the peer had fiddled his expenses in what was described as an "unacceptably casual" manner. The misconduct occurred a mere three months after his return to the Lords from a nine-month suspension, which was one of the most severe penalties ever imposed on a peer. That previous suspension was for lobbying on behalf of a commercial healthcare company that had paid him £57,000, a relationship deemed "lucrative" by parliamentary watchdogs.
The latest investigation was triggered by revelations from the Guardian that Shrewsbury had claimed travel expenses from public funds for journeys he did not actually make. Specifically, he used a publicly funded first-class rail ticket intended solely for parliamentary work to travel from London to Liverpool for a board meeting of Cheshire Land, a property development firm where he serves as a non-executive director.
Leaked Email and False Mileage Claims
In a leaked email to fellow directors, the peer notably wrote that "the government pays" for his travel to the business meeting. Furthermore, the standards commissioner, Martin Jelley, found that Shrewsbury had claimed for four car journeys that he could not have possibly undertaken. Jelley emphasised that the peer's approach to his mileage claims was unacceptably casual, highlighting a pattern of behaviour that blurred the lines between parliamentary duties and private business activities.
Despite the findings, the House of Lords conduct committee acknowledged that the sums involved were relatively small, amounting to just under £200, and noted that Lord Shrewsbury had quickly acknowledged his wrongdoing, offered a full apology, and reimbursed the house. The committee stated there was no evidence of deliberate dishonesty, but nevertheless determined that a short period of suspension was warranted.
Campaigners Demand Tougher Enforcement
Anti-corruption campaigners have voiced strong criticism of the perceived leniency of the punishment. Kamila Kingstone, a senior campaigner at Spotlight on Corruption, argued that the case demonstrates "a deeply worrying disregard for the rules" that are designed to protect public money. She stated that intentionally using parliamentary resources for private business, coupled with being casual about false mileage claims, severely damages public trust in the House of Lords.
Kingstone further emphasised that this breach, occurring so soon after a previous suspension, underscores the urgent need for tougher enforcement and real consequences when parliamentary standards are repeatedly ignored. The perception that some peers believe the rules do not apply to them is reinforced by such incidents, she added.
A Pattern of Misconduct
The conduct committee pointed out that while the previous breach was unrelated to allowances, a common thread in both cases was Lord Shrewsbury's failure to maintain a clear distinction between his parliamentary and business activities. His 2023 suspension was judged as "extremely serious" and was deemed to have damaged the reputation of the upper chamber.
Shrewsbury is the fifth peer to have been found in breach of House of Lords rules following the Guardian's extensive investigation into the commercial interests of peers. Having been a member of the Lords since 1981, his repeated misconduct raises significant questions about the effectiveness of current disciplinary measures and the accountability mechanisms within the UK's second chamber.
