Not surprisingly, the Lords has been getting some unfavourable coverage as a result of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosescute Baroness Uddin in the light of the vague rules governing a peer’s principal residence. The Clerk of the Parliaments yesterday issued a statement explaining his interpretation. In it, he also refers to the report of the House Committee, which is to be debated on Tuesday. This provides for a much clearer and tighter definition of a principal residence, essentially bringing it into line with what I suspect most of us believed it to be anyway – that is, the place where one spends most of the time when the House is not sitting (including weekends). It also seeks to ensure that there is greater transparency in publication and checking of the accuracy of declarations as to one’s principal residence.
Also, having agreed a new Code of Conduct, the House has now advertised for a Lords Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner will be responsible for the independent investigation and assessment of allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct by Members, including in relation to the House’s expenses and allowances system.
There is still some way to go, but we are getting there. The sooner the better.
My Lord I am most grateful you see fit to bring this to the fore yet again, it is something I`ve no doubt a majority in both Houses would like to disappear quickly.
I had as you will possibly know already written regards this matter just this morning on Lord Renton`s last blog.
The 4 who stand charged already, must be an embarrassment to both Houses in not taking to the dock initially and then pleading Parliamentary Privilige. I understand that in a position of power one has to be careful about what is said regards particular cases but that can appear to be condoning to the public. One would have at least expected some outrage from the House regards the defendants not wanting to go into the dock, which has little concern to do with the case.
Regards rules of residence, the one commonly used in general public circumstances is that residence means 4 nights a week. This is often applied where children are concerned with split parents or in matters of benefit regarding live in lovers.
To state you are resident by means of 1 night a month is absurd, as my Lord rightly states one could, even if working away, be thought to be in residence at least most weekends.
Regards other rules/regulations concerning other costs these too should be in line with public. If one should get payments for a second home the furnishing and maintenance should be from your own pocket as they do not relate to business expense. All such furnishings I believe at present, some having been paid for by the taxpayer, could be sold on at end for self profit.
The code for expenses should be solved reasonably easily by applying Inland Revenues rules regarding business expenses. One of the reasons I am in favour of applying a salaried position is that Inland Revenue already has rulings in position that the Government set as fair.
My Lords none of this would have come about if Parliament had not been set aside from the people. If salaried positions with tax and NI had been in place answering to the Inland Revenue as all people have to. Even as self employed business people answering to Inland Revenue regards income and expenditure must be preferable unless you are specifically stating you are a special case. Even in those circumstances where Parliament may say they are entirely different to any form of business I`m sure Inland Revenue would have a view toward leniency.
To be seen making law for us and not applying it to oneself is a travesty.
So we have the Clerk who is reponsible for the fianaces giving away millions without checking where people were living.
If there is no record of peers main homes, then there is no record of their second homes. Why has he handed out money to any peer for a second home?
There is an offence of Malfeasance in Public office. From the 4 tests you need to make the case, its pretty certain that he’s committed an offence in paying out cash without making certain that it was justified.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/principal/clerk_lords.cfm shows clearly that he’s responsible for paying out money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office for the details of the offence.
So, Phillip, do I contact the police directly or do I contact the Lords to go through another sham investigation?
Wolfgang: I suggest you contact the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose legal acumen appears not to match yours.
It goes to the heart of why I’ve been going on at you and other Lords.
You are funded out of my pocket as with other tax payers.
You clearly are suffering from financial incompetence in that you have lost control over the money that you have taken from us.
This is a good example of that. If you can’t control the expenses claimed by Lords, in what everyone in this country clearly believes is outright fraud, then what are you doing in other areas?
Oversight of government spending? Clearly not going on is it?
Oversight of other laws? If you can exercise control over expenses, why should we believe you are exercising oversight over anything else?
ie We have two categories of politician.
1. Those on the blag.
2. Those opening the door and letting them
Wolfgang: Since they are different tasks, one cannot translate performance of one to performance of the other. I could be bad at teaching and good at research or vice versa (or brilliant at both).
Carl H: I would not necessarily disagree with anything you have written. You surmise correctly the view of many in the House in response to what has happened and the realisation that some Members were interpreting the rules very differently to the everyone else. The point about costs for furnishings and the like applies more to the Commons than the Lords. We have a single overnight accommodation allowance. I am agnostic on the issue as to whether the payments are taxed or not. My primary interest is to ensure that the rules are (a) simple and (b) transparent. The recommendations of the House Committee are taking us in the right direction.
Next question. You’ve clearly come to the conclusion that money has been paid out that shouldn’t have been because of lax controls.
What’s your proposal for getting it back?
On the Lords in general.
Why were you investigating at the same time as the police?
Why release a statement that scuppers a police investigation?
Isn’t that interferring in a police investigation?
Wolfgang: I gather Lord Paul has paid back what he claimed in overnight expenses. The Lords investigation was suspended when the police investigations began and it has now been resumed. The Clerk of the Parliaments must answer for his own actions.
When you say its taking the Lords in the right direction, that means they haven’t gone all the way.
What’s missing?
Wolfgang: (a) Implementing the recommendations of the SSRB regarding a single daily attendance allowance, with no unreceipted claims for overnight accommodation; (b) implementing the provisions (contained in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill) to enable the House to expel members; and (c) reforming the internal governance arrangements of the Lords. There have been some informal groups in the Lords exploring different ways of strengthening the House in fulfilling its functions, one of which has looked at creating a more transparent system of internal governance.
An open Letter to The House of Lords
Apologies for the intrusion into this blog but please bear with me.
I have come across the most atrocious case of discrimination that puts everything in the recent equality bill to shame. This needs immediate attention as I believe a lot of suffering maybe being caused by it, I feel only the Lords may help on this matter.
It has been drawn to my attention that a certain group of people in a like for like environment of work are being paid substantially less and through institutionalised work practices they are forbidden from administrative roles. They are also forbidden to make changes to their work practice and even office area`s without leave from the institution masters.
The reason I ask my Noble Lords for help in this matter is that this is happening in the House of Lords and the discriminated workers are the crossbenchers. They cannot partake of Cranbourne monies, are not allowed part in the wash-up and are forbidden to be part of “the usual channels”.
This is by far the worst case of discrimination I have ever been witness to and I feel this needs addressing without further delay
Carl. H: The cross-benchers do receive Cranborne money. It is not on a par with the amounts received by the opposition parties, but the cross-benchers do not have front-bench spokepersons and the infrastructure that the parties have. In practice, the cross-benchers, like other members, will have a considerable say when it comes to the wash-up: even if there are deals done through the parties, any Bill still needs parliamentary approval and peers may not necessarily let through what has been decided by the party leaderships.
The operation of each House of Parliament depends on a number of factors, which are being publicly exposed by the expenses affairs. These factors include: institutional organisation, effective control and culture & ethos.
In the Commons, because these factors are all so negative – non-professional, non-robust, overlapping & deferential internal management; de facto control by the Executive and by party groups; and still (despite some ‘outreach’ initiatives) largely a culture of insularity – the expenses affair has been so long-running and damaging.
In the Lords, the control factors are less salient, so one must presume that its expenses difficulties arise from similar management and cultural problems as with the Commons. The difficulties in reforming internal standards regulation are an example of ongoing obstacles of deference (inevitable in an institution where membership comes with honours, titles etc, whether hereditary or otherwise), and inefficient management.
The longer-term danger for Westminster, and for its public, is that the ‘moral panic’ induced by the media and Govt (see the conventional wisdom line of Lord Soley’s post above) throws out the essential ‘baby’ of necessary parliamentary autonomy with the dirty ‘bathwater’ of abuse and unethical conduct and practice.
What is required is:
*Reformed, robust internal management;
*As much practical autonomy of the each House from its Executive and ‘party’ groups;
*A fundamental change of culture & ethos towards a greater perception of Westminster as a democratic representative assembly operated FOR the benefit of the public it serves rather its members and staff.
‘Self-regulation’ has, unfortunately, become a dirty word for parliaments. But internal parliamentary autonomy is an essential prerequisite of an effective democratic parliament. More modern methods of self-regulation need to be devised to protect and preserve necessary autonomy, such as by operating where necessary – eg in ethical, financial and similarly sensitive areas – via arm’s length bodies, acting with operational independence, but ultimately on behalf of the parliament itself.
If parliamentary autonomy is further surrendered (despite small steps in the opposite direction via ‘outreach’, and minimalist procedural reforms a la Wright Committee in the Commons), then ultimately only Executives benefit and the public suffers.
Ken: See my response to Wolfgang above. Many members are seized of the point you make and are addressing the issue of internal governance. An informal working group has produced a discussion paper with recommendations for change, based on greater transparency and members having a greater say in governance issues.
My news report gave a certain Lord Hollingfield as being in court with the three others, and claiming outside the court that he had never claimed any fees or allowances in 30 years of public service.There are ways of using the Houses of parliament for the purpose of exercising influence, I guess.
Accusations against Peers of whichever party are only to be expected, after the
“changed relationship between Law courts and parliament”
uncovered the can of worms which has probably been going since Harold Macmillan’s day.
The Labour party in the commons came off worst for having done peers reform, including Law lords reform, so now the backlash has arrived, against what is basically a reactionary chamber, whichever side you sit on, or party you do, or do not, belong to.
Especially since there is an election coming in which one of the jibes will be
“What about Expenses!!!”
I can hear it now.
Belated Apologies to CarlH for a rude remark I made about him, which, in a political context was a little excessive!
Jack Straw’s plans for a Dangerous Lords Bill is being hailed as a populist move but exactly where does a new second chamber figure in the ‘Reasons why I must vote Labour’?
ladytizzy: Quite. As politicians keep pointing out, it is not an issue that resonates on the doorsteps – or indeed anywhere else much.
While the public retain an interest in how much democracy costs it may be worthwhile pointing out that elected Members of a second chamber won’t be putting themselves up out of the goodness of their heart.
I should have added that the ‘I’ in the above post is informal, not personal!
LN: I posted the below on LS’s blog spot but it did not register? People cannot understand why a single body cannot regulate a money matter such as expenses in both houses.
Both Houses of Parliament are constitutionally obliged to deal with their own business in separate chambers and here’s why.
It all started on the last day of Parliament Nov 21, 1410 when the King, Henry IV, was in attendance. Both the Commons and the Lords had granted the King a lump of money or subsidy over a two year period by act of Parliament.
In a manner not too dissimilar to the schism that resulted in the Parliament Act 1911 both houses could not agree on a money matter, i.e. the rate of purchase tax as a percentage rate on goods to be applied over a two year period.
However, unlike 1911, the King was in attendance and he was not best pleased by the squabbling. So he evoked an ordinance, see link below, which the historian Cobbet translates:
“That in all future Parliaments, in the absence of the King, it should be lawful as well to the Lords by themselves, as to the Commons by themselves, to debate of all matters relating to the realm, and of the means to redress them; without disclosing the same to the King before a determination made thereof, and that to be done only by the mouth of the Speaker. Which ordinance was made, because part of the aforesaid displeasure arose on an account of the Lords making the King, several times, privy to their debates on the subsidy, and brought messages from him; which the Commons said was absolutely against their liberties.”
This is why both houses must deal with internal money matters independently of each other. Least, that’s my slant on things but I stand to be corrected.
Ref: Parliamentary History of England Vol 1.
William Cobbet, 1806; Book Page 308, PDF Page 205
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k7cTAAAAYAAJ
Medieval Ordinance (Legislation)
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ordinance_(Legislation)
I can’t quickly see in the The Clerk of the Parliaments statement explaining his interpretation anything ‘explaining his interpretation’!!
I cannot believe that any reasonable member of the public or indeed many peers would read the rules and conclude they only required 1d/month.
I can’t see in the advert a salary or indeed any details about the costs for the support structure. Please tell me Lord Norton that the Lords have not taken leave of their senses and dreamt up some embarrassingly costly structure.
Croft: There is also the point that what has been defined is the ‘main’ residence, but no one has picked up on the fact that ‘residence’ has not been defined. One may have to visit at least once a month, but what is it that one is visiting? If one cannot demonstrate that it is one’s own residence – as distinct from a property – then the claims may not be valid.
With the Commissioner, the intention is not to create a costly process but rather an efficient one.
Main residence is defined for purposes of Council Taxation but it is complex and from the standpoint of fairness not what we`d expect.
“You may have a main residence but also own or rent another property nearer your place of work which you use during the week returning at weekends to your main residence. If you are a salesmen, a member of the armed services or a merchant seamen, etc., you may spend much of the year away from your ‘main residence’.
The Courts have decided that in such situations the time spent away from your main residence is largely irrelevant and that your main residence is where you ‘intend to return’ & ‘where you would live if not for the demands of your work’. This is generally where your partner and children (if any) live.
A recent case, however, involved a couple who owned a property that was their usual residence for nearly 20 years. They then moved into accommodation provided by the husband’s employer for four and a half years. During this time they did not spend a night at the property they owned, even though it was only a few miles away, and visited it only to clean and maintain it. The Court of Appeal held that the accommodation provided by the employer was their main residence during this period.”
http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/counciltax/content.php?page=sole_main
That lets many off the hook.
That which I posted earlier:
“Regards rules of residence, the one commonly used in general public circumstances is that residence means 4 nights a week. This is often applied where children are concerned with split parents or in matters of benefit regarding live in lovers.”
Is apparently a common myth. Provided your mail, your clothes etc., and you vote from another address it is the other address you live at no matter where you sleep.
“Sometimes people will tell you that it
counts as living together if you stay
there for more than 2 or 3 nights a
week – this is a myth. In order to be
treated as a couple for benefits
purposes you have to be living
together at the same address. If you
have another address where you
receive your post, keep your things,
pay bills etc you clearly don’t live
with your boyfriend. Other situations
can be more difficult to prove to the
DWP. If you have this problem you
should go to an advice centre.”
http://static.advicenow.org.uk/files/lt-benefits-2010-1161.pdf
Carl. H: Thanks for the information. It is very useful. I think some of us would take the view that a main residence is at least the place where you keep or usually keep most of your clothes and personal possessions.
“a main residence is at least the place where you keep or usually keep most of your clothes and personal possessions”.
How easy! Main or second residence regulations are well defined and fairly often adjusted to prevent the dodges that tax lawyers invent.
Exactly The same should apply to the Law meting peers in parliament.
The Tax law on the subject is complex but not particularly long lived since the idea of second homes for the upper/middle class, whom we now also find in the HofL, is one which only got under way in the late 1950s.
Vast numbers of Burgher type people in the UK now have second and even third homes (with which many of them gamble on the 14 years cycle. The tax treatment and designation should be exactly the same for peers as theirs.
Taxation of allowances also has a plentiful
tradition in tax law. there is more of it now than there ever was, for the man in the street.
It is not taxed.
The question of whether MPs , including peers, are employees of the state or Directors of it,or both, effects their taxable status, and these two definitions also considered by the Inland Revenue with regard to the directors of any PLC.
Curiously enough I took an active part in the judicial hearing which determined what a ‘residence’ was during an appeal against an guardianship order under the mental health act 1983. The legal guardian of a mentally ill person under a guardianship order has the right to determine where the individual should “reside” and the patient appealing wished to argue that a nursing home could not be a place he could be obliged to reside since it was not a residence. The Judge came to the conclusion that where one resides is the place one normally and habitually stays overnight and that therefore the nursing home was his residence. This is of course different from legal residency for tax purposes but seems like a good definition for parliamentary purposes as a starter and provides the basis for the likely audit checks on such things as paying full council tax and being on the local electoral register. It is the ‘main’ residence issue that is more difficult I think because it is quite likely that some working peers will actually spend more time in London than in their home. Actually I’m sure most of us will agree that what we need is clear transparent rules which are properly monitored by an independent person. Parliament does tend to make complex what other bodies find perfectly simple.
In the case the noble baroness mentions, the patient wanted to make his own designation of residency, and nobody would let him!
Normally the taxpayer makes his choice and then has to stick to it for a determined length of time.
That length of time and the methods used for changing the designation, are ones which are exploited by the business man tax payer, and
prevented by the Tax inpector/IR in a cat and mouse game.
Since MPs and peers are elected for a set term of possibly four years, perhaps the designation of principal and second home should be mead at the beginning of the parliament and stuck to, for the whole of the four years.
Unfortunately then when a period of rampant speculation and inflation in property prices comes along as happened between 2001-2007, smart Alecs want to change their principal residence at the toss of a coin.
I very much regret the corruption of the mixed economy, and the mass market for home ownership.
It has become, since Thatcher’s “right to buy” laws, quite the worst corruption offered by the system of capital employed in the UK.
There is now a mass market for SECOND HOME ownership from which this Parliamentary corruption has its source.
Meanwhile at the circumference from the centre, the numbers of homeless, unemployed,
drug addicts, increases exponentially.
Empty homes purchased for speculative gain
in every village, whilst the homeless camp on the heath nearby withonly the tin roof of an old van for protection, and a latrine au naturel for their hygiene.
A 14 year old asked me in the street on Saturday, “Why Am I going dark colored?”
Probably because she has been drinking the water from puddles at her camp site home, certainly using bad water, and possibly caught from one of her traveling friends;
a serious hepatitis diseases of some sort.
That is the end of the chain for the alleged thieving done by some members of parliament and peers, for their second homes.
I think we all accept, and indeed many of us have perhaps enjoyed for whatever reasons, that residence/main home can vary depending on profession (the army, salesmen and so on) but whatever the circumstances we need definitions that are reasonably simply to understand, enforce and enjoy public confidence I’m not clear even the new rules really get us that there
“Enjoy public confidence”
I don`t think that will happen anytime soon.Public perception of Westminster is that it is full of greed and corruption.
The news of expenses was damning, then came the news that since 1900 Ministerial positions have virtually doubled yet a lot of legislation is now from the EU, where the British Taxpayers fund another lot of Ministers.
More and more cost in Government administration seems neverending along with legislation that is becoming, again in perception, to the average man absurd. Even local administration, Councils, are charging you approx £30 a week to live in your own house.
Creating jobs is a good thing, creating more Government jobs isn`t. Paying someone £2500 dole money is moaned at very often, these lazy inconsiderate people I hear often but what of the positions created at £140,000 per year.
Government administration is a mess there is far too much needless waste, far too much promotion beyond ability.
I remember the days of strong Unions who backed Labour. The days when jobs were created for the boys, where even ficticious characters were on payrolls. Seem`s to me the Unions didn`t leave but just moved.
Westminster is not efficient, it is not value for money, in terms of business it would be bankrupt and being investigated. It is no longer fair or equal, it is outdated and worse, seen by it`s empoyers, the people of the Nation to be corrupt.