I think you must have read a Sunday Express article which drew from my evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body. The journalist who wrote it telephoned me and said he wanted to use the evidence in a story and I pointed out that I had put the evidence on the blog because I thought it was a particularly important issue which needed public discussion. I would like you to read the evidence - here it is:
When you have read it I think you will agree that the report was grossly inaccurate. The press did a good job on revealing the problems associated with MP's and Peers expenses (thanks to the Freedom of Information Act passed by this government and with my full support) but some journalists seem incapable of writing an accurate story and in doing so they betray good journalistic standards. You will see in my evidence that I state that expenses MUST Always be receipted. The problem is that the £174 referred to is seen as being both an allowance and an expenses. If I pay you an allowance to do a job in lieu of pay (Lords are not paid a salary of any type) then I should not ask you for a receipt. If I pay you expenses then I will insist on receipts. That is what I am recommending. Even more offensively the journalist suggested I was "pocketing" the office costs allowance - that is the money that I pay to the two people who work for me! I am not stealing their pay and I don't think they would work for me if I did! Beware of bad journalism! Please read the evidence by following the link above.