Lord Norton’s got an interesting thread going, Lord Soley’s said his bit again and I’ll remind everyone that I gave my view about our Lords allowances system in my blog on 20 July 2008. If we are to avoid the House of Lords being occupied solely by the independently wealthy or those on generous pensions there has to be a system of reasonable remuneration. A system of untaxed allowances is always going to look dodgy to the public; it is dodgy. Many of us have been saying this for years but getting anyone to listen is another matter. And it isn’t clear who should listen. One senior parliamentarian, who one would have thought was in an official position to influence, remarked last week that in order to change anything in the Lords, it was necessary to have 100% consensus. If only 95% of the Lords wants change there is no mechanism for acheiving it. So who does make decisions ? I don’t know, to be honest.
There is a House Committee which gives ‘non-executive guidance’ to the ‘Management Board, which is made up solely of senior admintative excutives and chaired by the Clerk to the Parliaments. The House Committee was appointed for the first time at the start of the 2002-03 session of Parliament. It is chaired by the Lord Speaker, and sets the policy framework for the House of Lords administration. The House Committee’s terms of reference include:
“to approve the House’s strategic, business and financial plans; to agree the annual Estimates and Supplementary Estimates; to supervise the arrangements relating to Members’ expenses; and to approve the House of Lords Annual Report.” So you might think they could make decsions about how we are paid. But no, it seems not. There are the politicians to consider. Quite how political parties feed into these arrangements is a mystery. There are ‘the usual channels’ but lowly backbenchers like me haven’t a clue what they are or how to approach them. Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Chief Governemnt Whip, came to talk to the crossbenchers about ‘the usual channels’ recently. It reminded me of my comprehension of logarithms at school… they were in my grasp for half an hour and then escaped again.
It may be that the Telegraph and other papers have done us all a favour by highlighting this idiotic system. Maybe at last we can expect 100% agreement that change must happen. And we need the system monitored and audited. Meanwhile we all sit as legitimate targets for criticism. And before anyone reads it in the papers I claim full allowances for the days I attend.
Last, a suggestion. I work perhaps 2-3 days a month as a board member of Monitor, the NHS Foundation Trust Regulator, for which I receive non-pensionable but taxable remuneration clearly audited, the amount available for you to look at on the web in our annual report. In spite of members living in far flung corners of the country we get travelling expenses only (but before you ask, I don’t claim when the House is sitting because the Lords pays mine to be in London during the week). Now why can’t we get a similar taxable pay system in the Lords, the amount determined by an external body of course. It isn’t difficult for other governmental organisations, it should be easy for us too.
You make it sound like understanding the ‘usual channels’ has something of Lord Palmerston’s quote explaining the Schleswig-Holstein question. ” (It) is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.
I find the 100% comment surprising as I always tended insofar as I understand the back rooms system to assume it was essentially a matter of getting agreement among the leaders (in the Lords) of the governing and official opposition (or in extremis the LDs). There are certainly no rules requiring a vote/resolution to be carried nemine contradicente
It seems to me you are navel-gazing although you make some salient points. I don’t know whether you have noticed but the public have switched off to politics so your post is not too long, it goes unread, perhaps like mine.
The idiotes grow in number by the day especially those youngsters that can vote but don’t. Their perception is that politicians are all the same; out to line their pockets and that democracy is a waste of time.
In the final days of the Weimar Republic, a demagogue rose up to offer the German people a vision. When those opposed to him asked what his policies were he raged and ranted that he would not stoop to give policies because policies and democracy had failed the German people. Instead he chose to speak in abstractions playing on the emotional needs of people. This resulted in the Gleichschaltung and Germany was lost to democracy.
Many now fear that the BNP is on the rise. They gain ground not because they offer policy but because they satisfy emotional needs instead. Each nation operating a democracy has similar nationalist parties and their supporters’ wait patiently in the darkness for their moment to come.
MPs may be feeling low and the public may be angry but there are bigger issues at stake and we need collectively to look at the engine of democracy, it is in need of an overhaul. We should start with the genesis of today’s problems in 1911.
Quoted from the link below:
“Lloyd George argued that being an MP was becoming a full- time job and that salaries were needed to bring in ‘men of wide culture, of high intelligence and of earnest purpose’”
In that same year the House of Lords was changed by the Parliament Act, which resulted in the loss of a mechanism that had worked to check an inherent weakness of democracy.
The Commons needs to offer inducements to an electorate by way of persuasion, the most effective being more money in their pockets. This mechanism is inherently flawed because like somebody on drugs they want more and more in order to derive the same pleasure and the only way to get elected is to give them more.
The Commons acts like a cartel when it comes to taxation. Tax rises are never countered by proposals for unfunded tax cuts but by funded ones. The public will not elect somebody who cuts off their supply of inducement.
Both these effects are corrosive to democracy and the House of Lords is no longer able to slow down the corrosion. People are becoming poorer but MPs maintain their lifestyles and perks.
Should we allow the House of Lords to stop the corrosion, it is the constitutional equal of the Commons or should we kid ourselves that a House of Commons can be self-regulating and would never leverage any public body to get its own way?
Ref: For a mediocre wage you get a dim MP
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/for-a-mediocre-wage-you-get-a-dim-mp-1324259.html
Baroness Murphy,
There is a far, far simpler solution – if you want something done, ask a woman..
The House of Lords is undemocratic and has a small problem of cash-for-influence.
The House of Commons is elected and has a massive problem of sleaze.
So ask Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second to govern by Royal Proclamation. She is incorruptible. She is indefatigable. She has a Privy Council, and some remaining Hereditary Peers that she can ask for advice. Much of our law comes as a ‘boil-in-the-bag’ ready-meal from Brussels which she can select or reject at will. And talking of Will, he and Harry could play rock-paper-scissors with her over the tougher decisions.
It would be a huge advance on what we have at the moment. No doubt the ancestors of the Marquess of Lothian and Viscount Hailsham ‘looked after’ the serfs on their land, which was a kinda better system than abandoning any sense of duty to the state and jobseekers’ allowance. And as the owners of the Daily Telegraph have recently discovered, democracy ain’t all its cracked up to be…
Just a thought…
Baroness: My apologies!
A senior moment, the post above was meant for Lord Soley’s blog spot.
“One senior parliamentarian, who one would have thought was in an official position to influence, remarked last week that in order to change anything in the Lords, it was necessary to have 100% consensus.”
Perhaps our peers need some polish? See Sejm in the link below.
“There are ‘the usual channels’ but lowly backbenchers like me haven’t a clue what they are or how to approach them”
As a principle everybody should have tax representation including MPs. But it presents a conundrum. Those who set tax and also pay tax do so without tax representation. Everybody is kicking MPs but who is standing up for them? Their tax affairs must be like Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach. How do we achieve this?
Peers I would think have tax representation through the Commons but I am not sure. The Monarchy has no representation but it pays taxes? I have never liked this on principle. They could pay peers remuneration to the extent that as a cost set against profits it reduces tax to zero. If the Crown has a good year peers get a bonus. However, bang would go your independence so this will never happen.
As the house is not in a position to give scrutiny to Finance Bills most peers may not understand that paying tax under New Labour has moved from an inconvenience to rocket science. So a Parliamentary laissez-faire attitude has been moving towards disaster for some time through complexity.
MP’s submissions to HMRC are passed through all local offices and go directly to processing without any checks done. Unbelievable! Yes, this really happens.
So the Commons and HMRC between them have brought Parliament down. What will it take to return the house as auditors to the Commons? Certainly not, common sense!
Ref: Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejm
Croft, I am sure you are right there is no 100% rule but the political reality is that everyone must agree or concede unless there’s a vote in the house on an issue.
Senex, mightily relieved about your mistake, I was wondering how to respond. I had never thought about the notion that we don’t have a say in taxes so we shouldn’t pay them. I think we could dispense with that particlur right mayself in the interests of public openness.
Bedd Gelert, you’re teasing me again. But actually I’d happily offer to become dictator myself for a certain amount of remuneration, houses, gardens, etc. I’ve always thought it would be nice to be a duchess rather than lowly baroness, perhaps I could apply for an upgrade through the honours system? Looks like its too late to marry a Duke or get the Theoretical Chemist a duchy.
And thank you very much for introducing me to the medieval Polish parliamentary system, all fascinating stuff.
baronessmurphy: Now might be an opportunity, the best opportunity we may get, to nudge those resistant to change in the administration of both chambers into a more open transparent discussion and agreement of allowances/benefits/rules and sanctions.
Both the dukes in the Lords are married, indeed I can’t think of the British Duke who isn’t. Of course in other countries life peerages are given at all ranks (e.g. Spain) Historically they were given at all ranks in Britain though the majority were given to the mistresses of the King. We probably still would have all ranks but for the Wensleydale Peerage Case and the subsequent acts creating Life peers (Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876
& Life Peerages Act 1958) which limited them to baronies only. There is however no logical reason for that to be the case.
Senex: The constitutional theory of peers lacking a vote was that they had personal representation in parliament which was rather superior to a vote!
Baroness Murphy,
Is there not a chance you could recruit Nadine ‘They are not expenses, they are allowances’ Dorries into the Lords ??
I have a feeling that it is only a matter of time before David Cameron decides to test out the ‘Peter Principle’ on her, just to get her out of his hair…
Remember where you heard it first….
And I do think that my approach to idleness and slacking is the way forward – even if I became a Baron, that wouldn’t be good enough for the English class system, as one always wants what one hasn’t got, what ?
Baroness: We know from the blog that your partner is associated with the sciences and as Baroness D’Souza blogs about art and beauty I thought I would give you a link to something beautiful.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
Our world! I take the RSS feed for this and I was thinking that as you admit to being just a lowly backbencher it might have you thinking of a hire plane.