Peer was encouraged to claim false expenses in lieu of salary, court told

A former Conservative party peer accused of claiming more than £11,000 in false expenses believed he was entitled to the allowances "in lieu of salary" for attending the House of Lords, a jury heard today. Lord Taylor of Warwick submitted forms claiming his main residence was in Oxford when he was actually living in London, and claimed night subsistence and mileage allowances to which he knew he was not entitled, Helen Law, prosecuting, told Southwark crown court. But the 58-year-old qualified barrister – who is the first parliamentarian to stand trial over expenses allegations – believed it was common practice, jurors were told. Mohammed Khamisa QC, defending, said a system had evolved in the House of Lords "where new peers were encouraged to claim maximum allowance expenses". It was seen as compensation for life peers, such as Taylor, who were not wealthy and had given up jobs for the privilege of attending the Lords. "It was openly talked about. It was openly operated," Khamisa said. "One was encouraged to treat expenses allowances in lieu of salary." Taylor, of Ealing, west London, who appeared under his full name, John David Beckett Taylor, denies six counts of false accounting between 2006 and 2007. He claimed his residence was an address in Oxford where his half-nephew lived with his partner, said Law. The peer agreed that he had never stayed there and had no legal and financial interest in the property, she said, and those living there had "very little contact" with him. He only had one residence, and that was in Ealing, the jury heard. Registering the Oxford address as his main residence enabled him to claim overnight subsistence in London of a maximum of £154.50 per night spent in the city on House of Lords business, and 40p a mile for the 118-mile round trip. Taylor maintained that a senior peer, Lord Colwyn, had told him he would be "crazy" not to register living outside London, a claim denied by Lord Colwyn, the jury heard. Taylor claimed he had been informed it was acceptable to register a residence so long as it had a familial link, Law said. "It is the prosecution's case that those claim forms contained claims for some expenses Lord Taylor was not entitled to and that Lord Taylor knew that at the time he submitted those forms," the prosecutor said. "It is the prosecution's case that Lord Taylor lied on the forms in order to get those expenses and that he was being dishonest when he submitted them," Khamisa said. "Others he worked with and other peers" told Taylor it was acceptable practice and his client would "hotly challenge" Lord Colwyn's "now poor recollection", he said. "He didn't consider it dishonest. He didn't consider it misleading or untrue. It was commonplace," said Khamisa. His client had fought hard to become a successful barrister and the first black peer. "He fought off racists. He fought off insults. He fought off threats to his life. Why would he throw that all away to claim £77.50 [the maximum day allowance]?" Jurors were told that when the peer was first confronted over the allowances by an investigative journalist, Taylor claimed he was partly living in Birmingham, where his mother was in poor health, and that he had registered her address as his residence until 2007. But his mother had died in 2001, and the family home had been sold that year. The case continues.