Now that the 2008-09 session has finished, some data on the session have been published. The average daily attendance was 400. There were 89 divisions during the session; the Government was defeated in 25 of them. The House sat later than 10.00 p.m. (its target rising time) on 37 out of the 134 sitting days. The average sitting lasted six hours and 46 minutes.
In addition to the data published by the House, data on individual members (though not including work in select committees and Grand Committee) can be found on the theyworkforyou website.
The more interesting statistics are
1. The number who spoke (gives an estimate of the number in the chamber)
2. The number of attended committees.
Then you have a reasonable estimate of the numbers who turn up and leave
nickleaton: What has always struck me about committees in the Lords is the commitment of members. Not only is there usually a high, often a full turnout, of members at committee meetings, but they stay for the whole meeting, participate and demonstrate that they have read the papers prepared for the meeting. This is not always apparent in other legislative chambers, mentioning no names. Given that the members are, in effect, all volunteers – there are no extra allowances or resources made available to peers who serve on committees – I think this is a commendable feature of the House.
I might add that the paperwork that one has to go through in preparation for a committee meeting is often substantial. Far more time may be taken up in preparation than the time of the meeting itself. Much of the work may be technical, as with the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, but it is very necessary.
I should add that there is a notable difference between those who turn up and leave the chamber and those who turn up and leave the House. A great deal of time is spent in offices. The paperwork is nowadays quite substantial. Someone prone to spend time in the chamber and speak regularly may not necessarily be the most active member of the House. It is possible they may be someone who can afford a secretary, which many of us cannot!
There may be a good turn out at committees. I put an FOI request in for a particular day, and there was 1 comittee with 8 people turning up.
On the same day I watched the Lords on the TV and estimated there was 50-60 people in the chamber.
Since the average turn out each day is 400 Lords, it what the others are doing.
Now clearly some can be coming and going into the chamber, but that’s unlikely.
That leaves me think, with some pretty strong evidence from eleswhere, that Lords are turning up to sign on, and then leave in order to collect expenses.
I also notice that the ‘reforms’ involve clocking in. Why has clocking out be left off the new rules?
If the new expenses rules are designed to save 18 million, are you going to agree a cap on spending of current spending less 18 million?
nickleaton: The fact that there are 50-60 peers in the chamber at one moment during a sitting of about seven hours does not tell one much about the daily attendance. Attendance in the chamber varies between the different items of business as well as within them. You will usually have about 150 peers in the chamber for Question Time. Others will attend later debates. I am not a regular at Question Time but am more active in debates and, indeed, in committee. I serve on two committees; at one point I was serving on three. Some committees sit while the House is in session and one cannot be in two places at the same time. Watching the chamber – even if one does it constantly – conveys only a part of the work of the House and its members. When I am attending the House, I normally get in about 8.00 a.m. and leave around 10.00 p.m. but only a small part of the time will be spent in the chamber.
The evidence is against you Lord Norton.
I put in an FOI request for a day last time we had this discussion.
1 committee, 8 members turned up. Sitting when the house was sitting.
So unless the House Lords FOI office has told me a porkie, its not the case.
Would you like me to submit a further FOI request? Perhaps all committees for a month. Who attends each one?
So I’ve taken into account any critism of it just being the chamber.
The sample on the chamber was around 50 peers.
So here, what’s an estimate? Number of different speakers on the day?
Unless we have you clocking in and clocking out, you are always open to what people know is going on. Peers clocking in and leaving, in order to collect expenses.
Just as we know that huge numbers of peers have been claiming for their main homes as second homes, which is why with the recent case the decision was that the Lords had not recorded their main addresses.
““the absence of any definition of main address in the current guidance to the House of Lords’ Members Expenses Scheme, I have come to the conclusion that I should not uphold the complaint.”
With regard to Lord Rennard.
Perhaps as a lawyer you can explain this one?
How has he got the money?
‘Never underestimate me!’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379505.stm
As if…
@Bedd
My opinions on Lord Sugar after his speech have not changed, they`re not good. Del Trotter springs to mind, though Del never did quite manage to er..persuade people into making him a millionaire so was quite likeable.
I see what you mean about Lord Sugar. Maiden speech that was all about him, and he’s a surprisingly bad public speaker. It seemed he was reading the whole speech from prompt cards, and sounded like it too.
Carl, You are right, I have been a fan of the Gordon Gekko ‘Greed is Good’ philosophy. However we are forced to admit that business which is inefficient and badly managed, as much of British industry was in the seventies, doesn’t generate the profits which pay for the health service and education.
Private business employs people and can be a force for good as long as it does not result in the overstepping of the mark whereby it is making the rules, rather than government.
People shouldn’t be embarrassed by running successful businesses, but the huge global multinational corporations don’t play by the rules humans do, and seem able to elude the law and taxation which provide the controls we need against human exploitation and the despoilation of the environment.
On a slightly related note, Lord Norton, I hope you are going to write something about the proposed new Lords’ allowances. A maximum of £30,000 including office costs is a rather low figure, which should give people an idea of the value for money the Lords offers. I can’t imagine elected politicians getting out of bed for that amount!
(Oh, and guess which photo the BBC chose to illustrate their story on this!)
Jonathan: Yes, I plan to – and I too saw the picture!
So if the cost is 30,000 per Lord, with 700 Lords I make the budget 21 million.
Currently the Lords costs 107 million.
Do you think the Lords are really going to cut their costs by 80%?
From the Amstrad Company Profile under products.
“2001 Jack Straw and Sir Alan Sugar launch e-m@iler watch, a revolutionary new scheme which allows Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators to communicate with the Police in near virtual time by means of Amstrad e-m@iler communication centres installed within their homes.”
http://www.amstrad.com/about/profile.html
Jack Straw !!!!
It wasn`t as fast as a phone and…. well someone who thought it would be a good gadget bought me one….I couldn`t give it away. Mr. Straw obviously did his homework. Just because you can sell sand to the Arabs doesn`t make you a good person.
Attendance fees for somebody who attends for about 200 days per year amounts to about £34,000
£170×200=
Gareth Howell: There aren’t 200 sitting days in a year. The number of sitting days per calendar year averages out at about 150.
So that means it costs us 1,800 pounds a day per Lord that turns up
My Lord is quick to point out what there isn`t !
Gareth try with these but it won`t be the full picture.
The allowances (from 1 August 2008), are based on recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries.
Overnight accommodation: £174.00
Day subsistence: £86.50
Office costs: £75
nickleaton: No. Over 40 per cent of the expenditure of the Lords in each year is for non-cash items such as building depreciation (and getting on for another 10 per cent is property costs). The institution does not cease to work on non-sitting days. A great deal of work is undertaken on days when the House is not sitting. The public purse is not going to be better off by £1,800 if a peer who was going to attend decides not to attend.
Judging by the expenses data on the parliament site there are quite a lot of peers who are not claiming what they could (on the basis of days attended) at present anyway – a couple almost nothing.
Croft: You are correct. I gather about a quarter of peers do not claim their full allowance for attendance.
So if we take your figures, you still cost 900 a peer per day. (50% of the costs based on your figures)
Are you worth it? Does what you do, and what you do not do justify the cost?
Are there better ways of spending the money?
nickleaton: I think the House represents considerable value for money, whether compared with other legislative chambers or relative to what it actually achieves in terms of changes to legislation or influening government thinking. It is also considerably cheaper (and more effective) than your proposal for referendums.
Well the real measure Lord Norton is not a comparison with other Parliaments. It’s a question of what you actually do that matters. What other countries allow in costs for their second chambers is a question for them surely.
So When we look at the Lords, you have to make the judgement on what you do and what you don’t do.
On the question of what you do manage to do, I’ve a question. How many of the 2,500 amendments are sourced from the government and how many are source from non-government peers (using the definition of government you prefer). The Lords can only claim the percentage that are not the government self correcting. The number won’t be large.
Then there is the question of what you don’t do. For example, trial by jury for lots of cases has been lost and that has been passed by the Lords.
You’ve stated that referenda by proxy is more expensive. What costs (numbers) have you compared to come to that conclusion?
Is payment made for attendance on non-sitting days?
There is a .pdf on the parliament.uk website
House of Lords, which gives some analysis of the claims of individual peers.
Some are up to £34,000, but it is good value for money from the peers whom I do know on the list.
Look at the true cost Gareth.
107 million a year.
150 sitting days
400 Lords on average (counts the sign on, check out peers too)
170 m / 150 / 400 is 1,783 pounds a day.
That is the cost of a Lord.
Not exactly cheap
nickleaton at 6.13: Given that you like to draw on international comparisons, it is a relevant consideration. It would be interesting to know your evidence for suggesting that the proportion of the 1,000-4,000 amendments secured in the Lords each session deriving from Government self-correcting errors is a large one. The fact that a minister brings forward an amendment does not meant that the amendment originated in the minister’s department. I have been surprised by the extent of ministers’ willingness to listen to representations and to introduce amendments in the light of those representations. I have achieved more changes to Bills through discussions with ministers than I have through bringing forward amendments of my own. Discussions on Bills are often quite extensive, leading to ministers accepting substantial and numerous changes. It is quite common for ministers to hold meetings prior to Second Reading of a Bill so that all interested peers can attend and raise issues related to the Bill. There is often a detailed and constructive dialogue between ministers and other peers as a Bill is going through the House. That again is something that attendance figures do not pick up. One may be more fruitfully engaged in a meeting in the ministerial meeting room on the first floor than in the chamber on the principal floor.
I don’t get your argument.
How is attendence of Lords connected with the number of ammendments made by the government and the lords?
You seem to be saying that lots of ammendments are made by the government, agreeing with my arguments?
Why is it now such a wide range of ammendments? I’ve been going on the figures given by one of your colleagues. Are they mistaken?
nickleaton: “How is attendence of Lords connected with the number of ammendments made by the government and the lords?” It isn’t, which is precisely my point!
As to the origin of amendments, my point was that amendments tabled by the Government do not necessarily originate with Government. The number of amendments tabled to Bills in the Lords and the number made are matters of public record: you can easily look up the data for each recent session. The record in recent years was in the 1999-2000 session, when 4,761 amendments were secured to Government Bills in the Lords.
“There is often a detailed and constructive dialogue between ministers and other peers as a Bill is going through the House. That again is something that attendance figures do not pick up.”
It would surely be in the interests of the Lords to try to find a more effective way to measure attendance -v- activity for exactly that reason.
If ministers are happy with a proposed amendment perhaps it could be introduced in such a way as to make clear it is not ‘from the government’ better reflecting its origin to the public. (That is something between a individuals peers amendment and a government amendment.)
The figure, from memory for was about 2,200 amendments a year, (from one of your colleagues). Given the cost of the Lords, that is 49,000 pounds per amendment.
Now I don’t know the percentage that of these amendments that are ‘government’ ammendments, but clearly there are going to be some.
However, it’s certainly an interesting area. After all, if the amendments are government amendments, we don’t need the lords to make them.
Propose a FOI request to determine the difference and you or I can submit it. Since you know the Lords’ rules more than I do you are likely to get technical part right. I’m not sure how to phrase it to get the difference.
However, there is still my open question. You’ve said referenda by proxy on acts of Parliament is more expensive than the cost of the Lords. What figure do you have for the cost of referenda by proxy?
Nick
nickleaton: I am afraid that the impact of the Lords is not amenable to simplistic quantification of the sort you suggest. The Lords is a multi-functional and functionally adaptable institution. Legislative scrutiny is but one of the its tasks. If you try to relate cost solely to the number of amendments, then all the other consequences the House has for the political system – influencing Government policy, influencing the stance of ministers in negotiations in the Council of Ministers, scrutinising executive actions or non-actions (i.e. non-decision-making), ensuring that the views of particular sections or bodies in society are heard and considered – are cost-free. That constitutes quite a contribution.
Trying to source the origins of Government amendments is a major exercise and largely impossible to achieve with precision. Even Government will not always be clear or certain as to where some amendments originated. And in some cases ministers will not necessarily be willing to concede that some amendments were not their idea. The sheer difficulty of analysing parliamentary amendments and where they originated is reflected in the few studies which have been undertaken of the subject.
nickleaton: On referendums by proxy, it strikes me as a non-starter, not least on grounds of security, never mind the cost. It is not only expensive but impractical, since having a referendum on the principle of a Bill leaves out the real task of scrutiny. There is also the fact that most electors, according to the survey undertaken for The Audit of Public Engagement, prefer to leave the decision making to others.
Well, you’ve stated that the cost of referenda by Proxy is higher than the cost of the Lords.
Abolishing the lords means we have a lot of money to spend on referenda. A large part of the cost, the registration is a sunk cost. By using proxies, the cost of counting the votes is restricted to adding up 640 x 2 numbers. I’ll offer to write the spreadsheet for free if you are worried about that part of the cost.
What figure are you using for the cost of referenda by Proxy?
On the question of security. You are making the assumption that the current system is perfect.
Members of your party haven’t exactly be angels in this matter. For example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7790534.stm
Referenda are not on the principle. They are on the bill itself. After politicians have done all the designing and scrutity, the public gets to say yes or no.
It deals with the largest electoral fraud of all. Namely manifestos. How many laws have been laid out in manifestos and how many haven’t?
If its not in the manifesto the public have not had the opportunity to have their say.
There is also the issue of why the public is so pissed off with politicians. This happened before the expenses. That’s just the nail in the coffin. Try going round canvassing. I think you will get a flavour of what the public thinks. However the real issue is that we have no control over the issues. You and others are going to do whatever you want, and blow the electorate.
ie. What’s the point in voting when you aren’t going to do what you’ve said, and you’re going to do lots of things you didn’t?
For example, all parties promised a referenda on Europe. Two fingers up to the electorate all round. That’s a failure to do as promised.
Where is the manifesto promise to abolish trial by jury, the right to silence, habeas corpus … Not one wisper, and yet you’ve passed those laws.
If you have to get that passed the electorate, you wouldn’t.
You would also re-engerise the political process. My vote is then worth the same as yours. The same as any MPs. As is anyone else on the electoral role.
In a modern world we can have Athenian style democracy. It’s just you won’t give up ruling over others.
Nick
PS. If you are so worried about costs, why has the government run up 7-8 trillion of debts not backed by assets?
Why if you are so worried about costs didn’t you stamp on the expenses fraudsters before they were outed by the leaks?
nickleaton: The quantity of the content of your posts is in inverse proportion to the quality. You are so way off beam that it is difficult to know where to start. On your earlier post (6.32) the evidence is not against me, since you haven’t offered any that contradicts what I have said. The number of peers in one committee at one time, or in the chamber, tells you little about how many peers are in the House. You cannot in any event generalise from a small N, which is what you seem keen to do. You also seem to have an aversion to doing some simple research. You don’t need to put in FOI requests to know how many peers attended a committee meeting. The information is already on the public record. There is generally a good atendance at committee meetings, both expressed in absolute terms and relative to attendance in the Commons.
On referendums by proxy, I simply don’t see the sense of it. You haven’t dealt adequately with the points I raised and saying our present system of voting is not without fault in terms of security is not an argument for refendums by proxy: it’s an argument for strengthening the existing arrangements for voting. Your system of approving a Bill after rather than before scrutiny omits the fact that scrutiny in the Commons means that whole chunks of Bill are not considered. On manifestos, most measures promised by governments in manifestos are implemented. You seem unaware of what the Lords has achieved in preventing things not promised in a manifesto. You also appear unaware of the problems of turnouts in referendums (see the work by Butler and Ranney) and the distorting effect than can have. And I know of no one other than you who seems to think that referendum by proxy is feasible, desirable or cost-effective.
You’ve stated quite clearly that referenda by proxy are more expensive that the 107 million a year it costs to run the Lords.
Are you making this up or do you have some hard evidence? I can’t tell which it is.
However, if you can provide some evidence, I’ll look at it and decide.
So, on the question of manifesto, here is a quiz.
Which manifesto contained the following
1. The abolishment of trial by jury in certain cases.
2. The removal of Habeas corpus in certain cases.
3. The rules for expenses for MPs and Lords
4. The removal of presumption of innocence in certain cases.
5. The removal of the right of silence.
6. The creation of 7-8 trillion of debts not back by assets.
I’m quite aware that the Lords haven’t prevented any of these.
I’ve no doubt you want to focus on the small number of successes. That is because you want to avoid the failures, and because you want to avoid any mentions of the costs.
As for you allegation I haven’t dealt with the points you have raised, I clearly have.
I said the figures were for one day. I asked you if you wanted another FOI request raised for a month. I also asked you to come up with a form of request that distiguishes the executive changes from the changes proposed by other members of the Lords. After all, you can’t claim credit if the executive modifies its own errors.
At 1900 pounds a day, per Lord, that means it takes a person on the poverty line to almost work for a year, and consume no other services, just to keep you going for a day.
Quite why you think that isn’t an issue beggars my belief
Nick
Im 50 something now and consider myself liberal, just and of reasonable knowledge.
10 years ago I was a xenophobic fool.
20 years ago I was a divorced drunk.(dry ever since).
30 years ago I was a young drunk.
At 18 I knew everything.
4 of the above I wouldn`t like voting on anything.
You seem unaware of what the Lords has achieved in preventing things not promised in a manifesto
I’ve gone to some effort to list some major items that the Lords haven’t prevented from coming into law.
So far you haven’t commented on it.
So perhaps you can list your successes, and at the same time list some of the things where the Lords have failed.
nickleaton: I shall be doing a post separately in due course about the difference that the Lords does make. You haven’t really addressed the points I have made about the Lords, but simply reiterate off-beam comments that don’t actually improve with repetition. Have you looked at the fate, say, of the Criminal Justice (Modes of Trial) Bill 2000 or the Frauds (Trials without a Jury) Bill 2007?
I have looked at them
However, you are ignoring the fact. Lets try them one by one.
You can be tried and found guilty in this country without even seeing any of the evidence against you.
The Lords have allowed that to be put into law.
Is that true or false?
Nick
Criminal Justice Act 2003
===============
Abolishes the right to trial by jury in some cases.
What about fines? You’re a consitutional expert.
No fines forfeitures or imprisonment without conviction.
Parking tickets are a fine or forfeiture. That’s been abolished and the Lords voted for that or didn’t realise what they were doing.
What about enabling acts? Why haven’t you mentioned them?
The list of failures by the Lords, Lord Norton is a huge one.
The number of cases where you can point to some success is small.
The when we examine the cost. 1900 pounds a day per Lord, its very high.
It’s about what a person on the poverty line (Min wage) pays in tax for a year.
Perhaps that is why you are against referenda. The peasants might decide to keep their hard earned money.
Nick