So if its 700 hours, it’s not cheap

So many lawyers, not enough accountants.

Don’t forget next year, we can add on the cost of the Supreme Court to the cost of the Lords.

I doubt you will reduce the cost of the Lords by the cost of the Supreme court.

It just shows the lack of control over costs. If the Lords think its costs a few thousands, when in reality it cost 1.3 million.

The costs are pretty accurate. Lady Tizzy supplied the number for the overall cost of the Lords. A quick search shows the number of days you sat. Basic mathematics shows the answer.

Pretty astonishing. So much money spent and so few results.

The crucial part is the failure rate of the Lords. What laws you allowed through.

For example, you’ve allowed through the abolishion of Habeas Corpus for some cases.

You’ve abolished trial by jury for lots of cases.

…

It’s not a good record and nothing to be proud of

107 million a year.

164 days sitting, last year.

So 2 days worth costs 1.3 million.

ie. Your debate in the Lords if repeated today would cost well over a million.

Why do you think it costs several thousands?

Franksummers3ba: I agree that the separation of powers is good in principle. More difficult is applying it in practice. The UK is not America and we have to be careful about simply transplanting their system onto ours. I believe the European Court is relevant, because it has an increasing influence on our domestic laws. Thank you for your link concerning media coverage of the US Supreme Court. I personally become uncomfortable seeing American Supreme Court Justices portrayed like media stars.

Senex: There are positive features of globalization. The issue is about management. In some way, the Law Lords have become victims of European legislation. The Supreme Court may well prove to be an improvement on what we had before. But, a major issue will be how its decisions affect our identity and sovereignty. This will be tested by how it deals with such international issues as extradition.

Zarove: We are where we are. So we should be positive about this change, but keep a careful eye on how it is working. As you said, the new Supreme Court will not guarantee impartiality, so we need to monitor how it develops. But this was a major reform. In the future we need to discuss such changes more deeply, before final decisions are made.

Bedd Gelert: How kind you are! I really appreciate your supportive comments about my blog.

Ladytizzy: There is still confusion as to whether the cost was nearer £100 million or £59 million. I suspect we will never know. You asked a specific question about the cost of the Hunting Act 2004. The cost of an individual Bill or Act is difficult to calculate. But apparently this legislation required 16 hours in the House of Commons and 22 hours in the House of Lords to debate. So it clearly cost several thousands of pounds.

I was always fascinated by the dummy variable, so loved by mathematical and econometric modellers. It seemed to me they couldn’t get their head around the human factor.

Secondly, I love the story, inevitably coming from Stephen Fry, on empirical evidence. When asked how big a heap of bees was he couldn’t answer. His professor then produced a number of bees – was that a heap? No. Adding a few more, each time he said no until the required number was reached. “Ah” said the professor, “so a heap of bees is precisely 28.”

A bit on the green side for me, but I’ll have a closer look after some sleep.