Castle Acre Priory
Yesterday we got out for a proper spring walk in sunshine for the first time this year, around Castle Acre in West Norfolk, one of the best preserved Norman settlements in the country. The ruined priory at one end of the village is the perfect romantic ruin, the castle rather more dilapidated at the other . So we were feeling pretty cheerful on our return home, to be greeted by the depressing newspaper headlines about peers’ expenses.
No wonder the Lords are reviled as out of touch. I agree with Lord Norton about the need for simplicity and transparency but also Lord Soley’s about the need to remove the decisions about our allowances from parliament altogether. For me the issue is a wider one about whether the processes of corporate governance in the Lords are adequate. In my view and many others in the House the governance arrangements fall far short of what is acceptable in other corporate public and private sector bodies. Backbenchers have no ability to influence at all; most decisions are taken by private agreements between political parties. I find the system both extraordinary and shameful. I resent being tarred with the same brush (I’d better say alleged brush hadn’t I) as Baroness Uddin and Lord Paul when the system explicitly excludes most peers’ views from being acknowledged and acted on. The suggested new rules on residence are obviously better but allowances are just one aspect of life in the Lords which need examining.
My Lady it is good to hear your voice on this.
My views are known by now I expect. The House of Lords operates under unfair and discriminatory working practices that would not be tolerated in the public environment.
Control of the House is apparently Party Political being controlled by the “Usual Channels” which are I believe the party whips. From offices to dinner bookings, the wash-up and order of business deals are done through the whips.
Approx 30% of the House, the Crossbenchers are ignored obviously not good enough it appears. This is outright discrimination, there are no other words for it.
30%, plus backbenchers if my Lady is correct ,of the House have no say at all in Bills put through the wash-up, the deals are done by Party Political whips. That isn`t democracy, that isn`t how the system was setup to fairly scrutinise legislation.
How can the House be seperatist, independent if it controlled, to all intents and purposes, by the commons parties ?
How can I say as a watcher of the House that it offers fair scrutiny when it clearly doesn`t ? How can I say that the House practises what it preaches when it is clearly discriminatory ?
Even with Cranbourne money how is this fair, this is money given to the Opposition for Parliamentary business. Now judging by this Crossbenchers obviously do not do a lot.
For the 2009/10 financial year, the rates payable to Opposition parties in the Lords are:
£474,927 a year for the Conservatives
£237,126 a year for the Liberal Democrats and
£61,003 a year to the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers.
Yet in numerical terms the Lords number:
Labour 212
Conservative 190
Crossbenchers 207
Oh yes and the Liberals, who apparently don`t do any business as they are leftout of Cranbourne money, nuumber 71.
The Upper House certainly doesn`t appear that way, it appears firmly under the boot of the commons parties.
The House needs, must have, independent administration and must be seen to be fair and just.
Castle Acre priory and Castle acre castle were created and used at the same time as Strata Florida in Ceredigion, the Lord Rhys stronghold ,which subsequently became the Mother house of the Cistercians of Wales.
Lord Rhys was a close descendant of Hywel Dda.
The Cistercians obviously also lost their very extensive estates, with the sacking of the monasteries.
Monasticism were/are Holy families where the sum of the whole is very distinctly greater than the sum of the parts, which was why they were sacked!!!
You are not being tarred with the same brush.
The brush you are being tarred with is that you didn’t control what they were up to.
As a Lord you have to take collective responsibility for the rules.
Then you state this
Backbenchers have no ability to influence at all;
So there is the obvious question. Why are we being forced to pay so much money for nothing?
Carl H, Lord Norton responded to this in his blog. We do get a small amount to help out the Crossbench Convenor but of course we do not have front bench spokesmen to support, Still it’s good to have a word siad in our support so thanks for that.
My Lady forgive my ignorance in this field, it is a little perplexing and somewhat disturbing that things are not as I supposed.
I`ve been trying to find information re Cranbourne Money and what I find doesn`t destroy what I initially said but reinforces the argument that the House of Lords is not as independent as I thought but run really from the other place.
I have found Cranbourne Money is basically for researchers but only to the main political parties. This seem`s rather unfair and would leave crossbenchers and Liberals at a distinct disadvantage. It also makes staking ones banner to a particular party financially astute, a bit like a type of bribery.
Maybe I`m a bit naive in thinking everything should be fair and equal but the House is beginning to look more and more like a plaything of the other place. Maybe it couldn`t work if everything was fair and all equal which disappoints me.
Whips and Spokesman of the Opposition getting salaries along with Chair and principal deputy of committees seem`s a bit jobs for the boys to me especially knowing the whips hold so much say in the matters.
I find myself less convinced that the system is fair or even right, it certainly seem`s that belonging to a party is financially advantageous.
The more I find, the more I harden my view that salaried positions in the House not tied to Parties is the way forward. It is becoming apparent that the House maybe no more an extension that gets to do the job that the other place can`t be bothered and I wonder if amendments are no more than backroom deals done on behalf of parties.
Carl. H: The Liberal Democrats, as your figures show, do receive Cranborne money. Other than the Liberal Democrats, there are no Liberals. On the oppposition benches, only the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip receive salaries.
Apologies I think I awoke with the wrong head today.
Apologies my Lord you are of course correct, I was blindly reading 3 parties including crossbenchers.
Of course this only adds to the dilemma, 71 Liberal Democrats receiving £237,126 but Crossbenchers just £61,003 which is rather unfair.
Conservatives : £2500 per peer
Liberal Democrats : £3340 ” ”
Crossbenchers : £294 ” ”
I know it shouldn`t be worked out per peer but…….
Allowances and Cranborne money are two different things.
I realise that Gareth but seeing as Cranborne Money seem`s quoted as being for researchers, being fair I assume everyone should have equal share.
The actuality is of course that it is for Parties and then of course just makes the House an extension of the other place.
You`ll find more here Gareth:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-01663.pdf
I feel that to much ambiguity exists in the rules for both houses.
Just apply the Civil Service, tried and tested rules, which actually work for all expenses claims.
The existing system for expenses employed by the Civil Service, is online on an intranet and simple and easy to use. Expenses above given level go for scrutiny and approval.
Random audit of claims is employed, which means that individuals must retain receipts for up to two years and can be challenged at any time to produce them.
Parliamentary expenses are Public Funds, so this system would cope with them admirably, especially if they are given the expenses rates applicable to a similar grade civil servant.
Looks like it`s time to go no matter who is elected !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8566722.stm
Personally I feel this is bad news.
Government hypocrisy ?
On the Lords ( the link above)
“Lord Adonis said Justice Secretary Jack Straw would outline full plans soon, ahead of a firm commitment to reform in the Labour election manifesto.
He said being fully elected was “the only way that a legislative assembly can be legitimate in the modern world”.
On the EHRC
“The committee, which is made up of MPs and peers, questioned Cabinet minister Harriet Harman’s decision to push through his reappointment, arguing that it undermined the body’s perceived independence.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8566943.stm
These blogs are addictive. I am racking my brains for knowledge of “Cranborne money” which is beginning to seem like the vogue term “wash-up” that somebody has just invented. Cranborne money comes in to the same category. It makes it seem institutionalized, which it ain’t.
From my own recollection it was only the Cranborne campaign which was in favor of such payments; it was also demanded at a time when the conservative party in parliament was stretched over the proverbial barrel. In fact it got worse in 2001 with a maj of 160 for labor.
You would have understood the foresight of Cranborne just before(?)the 1997 parliament in requesting such money if you had been seated in the chamber and THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION from 1997, and even less from 2001-2005.
The bad law and superficial judgements,were the consequence of that majority, culminating in the WMD vote of 2003.
The Tories need the money and apparently so do the lib dems in the HofL.
Labour party principle is for further reduction of the powers of the HofL.
Cranborne money as you call it, should be
reduced or abolished now that the circumstances of the parties are so very different from 1996/97
I am only going from memory, but the legislation was in 1997, not 1996, after the general election and not before it?
The historical perspective makes sense, if it was, since the HofL, of which the Salisbury/Cecil(Seisyllwg) families have been such ardent enthusiasts, for so many generations, was threatened with extinction by the newly elected Labor party.
Wiki says 1996, but that is wiki.