When you were at school, now is the time that lessons begin to get less serious and holiday events more numerous. Not so here in the House of Lords, we are still in very serious mode (even mood!).
Today we had the Second Reading of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) bill, a rare bit of good news; the Government by means of this bill will ratify the existing international treaty which bans all such heinous weapons. Tomorrow we have the Bribery bill, another bit of good news in that it seeks to outlaw ALL forms of bribery by holding both briber and bribee accountable. Let us see how it progresses.
In the evening the Lord Speaker will deliver the Hansard Society Lecture which it is rumoured will be uncompromising on the need for further reform in House procedures so that it becomes equipped to carry out its functions with transparency. On Thursday both Houses will publish the annual expenses for the last financial year and on Friday an important private member’s bill which argues for compensation for relatives of those who have died or continue to suffer from contaminated blood administered more than two decades ago.
On Monday we debate the Senior Salary Review Body’s Review of financial support for Members of the House of Lords. None of us has perhaps blogged sufficiently about ‘expenses’, but perhaps we should – at the risk of attracting some pretty hostile responses. The difficulty is that any attempt to point out the nature of the work that we do and the costs involved begins to sound very much like special pleading; and I accept that a lot of hard work as well as a degree of humility is necessary to win back any lost confidence. However, most peers do not enter the HoL to make money, that could be done a great deal more easily well outside the House. The majority of peers work pretty hard and pretty long hours scrutinising legislation in endless hours of committee work. We work in cramped offices with the minimum of secretarial assistance (most peers have access to a part time assistant) and if we weren’t to undertake this work there would be a great deal more highly unsatisfactory legislation out there.
The media have already accused the Lords of accepting a pay rise – but this is simply not true. While a daily allowance has now been offered, the overnight expenses have been both capped and restricted. Other allowances which those who worked during recess could claim has been abolished as has certain travel expenditure.
Over the week-end I was talking to a US Senator whose salaries are in the region of $200,000 and perhaps a further $250,000 for secretarial costs. The House of Lords is a very cost effective institution – the total annual cost being about £121 million. The equivalent annual cost of the House of Commons is well over £385 million. This means that the House of Lords costs each tax payer £3.81 per year and the House of Commons £12.14 per year.
But I expect you will remind us that we are untaxed and unelected – this is true but it doesn’t mean that we don’t carry out to the best of our ability the two main functions of the second chamber – to scrutinise and revise legislation and to hold the Government to account. Finally, I am not sure that the exposure of a few who have undoubtedly overclaimed, and even made false claims, necessarily should contaminate every member or negate everything that the House does?
Roll on the Christmas break!
Tomorrow we have the Bribery bill, another bit of good news in that it seeks to outlaw ALL forms of bribery by holding both briber and bribee accountable.
It doesn’t cover people paying Lords in exchange for changing legistlation, does it?
the total annual cost being about £121 million
That’s an increase from the last figure quoted by a lord of 107m
So with 150 working days a year, and 400 turning up each day (some leaving immediately), what does a lord cost?
About 2,020 pounds a day. Far more than someone on minimum wages pays in tax for an entire year.
Very bluntly, it takes one peasant working for a year to keep a Lord going for a day.
ie. You have no idea of cost. You’re looking at the wrong way round.
Your argument is that whatever the good, the cost is irrevant.
Well, given a choice of tax break for someone in poverty, or a Lord, you are going to lose.
Nick
None of us has perhaps blogged sufficiently about ‘expenses’, but perhaps we should – at the risk of attracting some pretty hostile responses.
Of course you will be.
Lord Rennard. Why should he have got off? That was a decision taken by Lords. The excuse was that no Lord had specified their main home, so he couldn’t be done for expenses fraud.
If you haven’t specified a main home, you won’t have specified a second home. Since none of you have done so, then none of you should get a second home allowance.
By not getting these details you have allowed Lords to effectively steal public funds with no recourse.
You’ve investigate yourselves. How do we know those who let Lord Rennard off are not also in the same pot?
Why should we trust the Lords with 121 million of other people’s money if they allow this to go on?
It looks like there are two sorts of Lords. Those who have stolen money, and those who let them. I’d like to hear an explaination as to why this conclusion isn’t the correct one to draw.
Nick
I suspect people are rather more concerned about what’s being rushed though before the election (the insanity of a balanced budget act!) and those measures that will escape much scrutiny or discussion in the political fix that is the ‘wash-up’ than the Cluster Munitions we’re not using anymore.
“Finally, I am not sure that the exposure of a few who have undoubtedly overclaimed, and even made false claims, necessarily should contaminate every member or negate everything that the House does?”
Exposure perhaps, sanctions….
The authorities seem to have dismissed almost all complaints because they claim there is a lack of definition of the meaning of the house rules. That will not restore faith. It might be a few bad eggs but if they are not seen to be dealt with then you probably can’t expect to avoid collateral damage.
” most peers do not enter the HoL to make money”
If you enjoy living there, it pays your way. That is all.
The Baroness mentions the Vampires’ bill which seeks to compensate people addicted to, but not in need of ,human blood transfusions
and who now want to be compensated for disease acquired from others thereby.
As we say in Welsh “ciwt eh?”
Some cases are, as we say in Latin, “bona fide”, but a good many are not.
I am looking forward to seeing BBC Parliament covering the Lords bringing in games on the last day.
Perhaps Lord Norton will play Baroness Murphy at ‘Downfall’ while the less academic peers will opt for a game of ‘Connect 4’ ?
Chess surely, it’s got bishops, knights and pawns – just like parliament
😉
Scrutinizing and revising legislation does not take 700 people to do.
The Baroness mentions the US Senate; that is 100 or more people for a population of 300m.
Rather different!
It is true that each state has a congress and senate as well. They have work to do.
I beg to differ Gar Hywel….700 people and they still get it wrong at times and let`s not say we want to be more like America. If I wanted to be that hated I`d join the BNP.
Of course if you want to whittle it down I`m sure Mr. Mugabe would welcome the job of Dictator. However I`m not sure it would cost less!
Well, don’t forget too that the US hasn’t subcontracted its law making to the EU.
If you can’t change EU legistlation, what’s the point in reviewing and revising it.
I have come to appreciate the hard work the Lords do on behalf on the Nation since wandering into this blog. I didn`t have the intention of stopping to any degree because I thought it would be another political wilderness where my voice was lost in the vast darkness. I`ve been surprised and enlightened to a side of politics I never knew.
The Lords who partake, volutarily, on this blog all seem to have time for explanation especially Lord Norton who appears to have his fingers in many pies and must run around like the proverbial blue bottomed fly. Escaping the vision of Baroness Deech with a 6 foot high mountain of paperwork on a Saturday evening is difficult. My Lady, Baroness D`Souza, will forever be fighting for World peace, harmony and the abolition of poverty ( apologies for the hippy pigeon hole).
Now some of our friends here may state the 150 day a year, £2k a day argument but being self employed I know how these things work. How it appears is often nowhere near the reality. Regards expenses, yes it needs sorting once and for all and I can`t help feeling a salaried post is best of all. Perhaps if all members of both Houses were salaried they`d get rid of some of the slackers themselves.
My Lady was extremely brave to have written without doubt there were “false claims”. What the public need to see is parity, the same law applied as is applied to them. An independent body to deal with salaries and wage increases is also desperately needed.
Regards some of the upcoming debates, I would rather discuss each on it`s own merits in the appropriate blog. The Bribery bill sounds full of pitfalls though, what is the difference betwixt bribery and incentive ? A working lunch and dinner on a vast yacht ? A contribution to a party and buying a knighthood ?
Politics is a knifes edge on the one hand keeping those with the loudest mouths (business) happy to keep the Nation afloat and on the other being just and fair to ALL the people of the land. Decisions must be taken from your own moral viewpoint though not those of a party or it`s no longer a democracy.Independence of party must be the rule in both Houses on all matters. No whips, no bribery, no blackmail.
It seems the electorate have a greater chance with my Lords than with the sheep in the other House. This blog proves it to an extent and I do appreciate the ear. I am also beginning to understand that as far as the HoL goes factual evidence far outweighs opinion though this is often difficult.
This blog appears to be asking if The Lords do a good job, are value for money and are appreciated ?
Certainly the job is extremely difficult, I can pick and choose my interest and which blog to comment on, you cannot. It involves a lot more than most people think and I think most Lords put a lot of time and effort into it.
Value for money ? In comparison to the other House…..Of course! In comparison to other business interests, yes. Just get rid of the parasites.
Are you appreciated ? By some including myself, yes. By other who know little of what is involved possibly not.
As long as you,hand on heart, feel that your vote is right at that time, for the people of this country no matter party politics you`re doing a good job. As long as you have done what you can to see and understand the reality from someone elses viewpoint and feel morally correct no one can ask more.
When you accepted the Lordship ( or whatever it is actually called) you accepted the pedestal. That which is higher than all of us, you accepted the responsibility and the fact that to all purposes you were better than the rest of us. Now your immediate response will be to deny that, please don`t it`s true else I`d be there too. Your voice is louder than mine, I`m grateful for your ear.
I know, I know I`ve been garrulous AGAIN ! The recession see`s me with far too much free time.
Now some of our friends here may state the 150 day a year, £2k a day argument but being self employed I know how these things work
The problem Carl is that it is make work, and very expensive too.
Ask yourself a simple question.
With 121 million, do you think you could get more value than employing 700 odd lords from the cash?
Nick
Well, I did ask for it didn’t I?
In brief, sanctions were applied, two peers were suspended for some months and allegations are being investigated with great thoroughness by the House authorities who will then pass on the results to the police.
Carl, NB 150 days a year but actually £200 per day NOT £2K!
The Lord Speaker has this evening delivered a really hard-hitting speech about the need to connect with the wider world and to bring our procedures into the 21st Century. I will comment on this further – but have to rush now because my day has not yet ended and I still have much PARLIAMENTARY work to do. I do wonder if you too are all still at work?
While (brief) suspension might have been unprecedented in the recent history of the house it was a pretty toothless punishment as you surely must recognise and will not have cut any mustard with the general public.
“Carl, NB 150 days a year but actually £200 per day NOT £2K!”
My Lady I was referring to Nickleaton`s figures in the second post. Who works out the cost by dividing the total sum by the amount of Lords. Apoligies if it caused consternation, I am well aware of both sets of figures.
Just finished work off to watch the TV version of MI5…Spooks !
1. Why are you doing the police work? Lets say I find a murder. Should I do a Poirot and investigate it?
2. You can’t spin it and say you cost 200 a day, being the amount you will get as expenses. That’s what YOU get.
What do WE lose? You cost us 2,000 a day.
121 million a year. 400 turning up each day, 150 days a year.
Do the maths. Its 2,000 a day.
As I’ll keep pointing out, that is more than someone on the poverty line pays in tax for an entire year.
So its a choice. Can we use that money to get someone on the poverty line free of tax, or do we spend it on you?
Which is the greater benefit?
2,000 pounds a day for 400 people to discuss parachuting hamsters from model aircraft, or do we free the poor from taxation?
Nick