Over the past two years, the problems of parliamentary expenses have tended to be dominated by stories affecting the House of Commons. The Daily Telegraph was at the forefront of revealing claims made by MPs. However, The Sunday Times identified problems with peers’ expenses and this acted as a wake-up call to the House. Since then, the House has been addressing issues of expenses and conduct. Various bodies were established in order to make recommendations and in recent months we have seen the fruits of their activities.
Following a report from a committee chaired by former Archbishop Lord Eames, we now have a new Code of Conduct. When peers are sworn in, they not only take the oath but also now subscribe to the code. (That is why you see a peer, on introduction, signing two documents). The House has also appointed a Commissioner for Standards (former Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan) to investigate complaints against peers. He reports his findings to a Sub-Committee on Conduct, presently headed by the former head of MI6 Baroness Manningham-Buller and including former Lord Chancellor Lord Irving of Lairg. Its findings are published.
Various changes were proposed in the 2009-10 session by the House Committee to the financial provision for peers. In the new Parliament, following recommendations from an ad hoc grouped chaired by Lord Wakeham, and a report from the House Committee, the Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, proposed a new and simple system of expenses. This was agreed without a vote on 20 July. An amendment to provide that peers should continue to be entitled to first-class travel was rejected.
We no longer have different headings under which we can claim expenses. There is no overnight accommodation allowance – the main focus of controversy – for peers who live outside London. Instead, there is a single day rate to cover all expenses, including accommodation, secretarial support, research assistance, and daily subsistence. One can claim either the full rate of £300 or a reduced rate of £150, the latter designed for those who are not able to devote the full day to parliamentary work. One can also claim travel expenses for travelling to London – where this is done by public transport, one uses a travel card, so the payment is made direct by the House and can be monitored.
The introduction of the new scheme – which takes effect following the recess – was welcomed by the media, notably The Times. Its simplicity has been contrasted with the system operating now in the Commons. The regime in the Lords is straightforward to operate. It requires no substantial bureaucracy. The cost of the Fees Office in the Commons used to be approximately £2 million a year. The cost of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is claimed to be over £6 million a year (though IPSA disputes the figure). The new scheme in the Lords is expected at worst to be cost-neutral and at best to cost less than the existing system.
The new scheme willl be monitored to see if it is working effectively, but it marks a significant break with past practice and is designed to minimise any opportunity for mis-use of public funds. I very much welcome it. The more the system has the merits of simplicity and transparency the better.
Cue Lord Blagger….I dare say.
My Lord it is very difficult to assess this without having all the facts and figures.
The old allowance was £86.50 a day, £174 overnight and £75 office. So there appears a great reduction, however if all Lords were to attend daily @ £300 per day would this stand upto scrutiny ?
There is also no mention of any sanctions should the code be broken and it is once again apparently a voluntary code. Though I would think being torn apart by Baroness Manningham-Buller and Lord Irving of Lairg maybe a suitable deterrent.
The transparency is welcome and I would hope it is lived upto. It is a sad day though when a scheme needs to be designed to minimise any opportunity for mis-use of public funds for such people as this.
Carl.H: I agree. The total daily sum that can be claimed under the new scheme is less than could be claimed under the old, but the total cost may increase if peers attend more frequently or simply as a consequence of the introduction of so many new peers – though in the case of the latter it is still likely to cost less than it would have done had the old scheme been maintained.
We have the sanction of suspension though I think there is general support for having the power of expulsion. Appearing before the sub-committee may well be a deterrent. I am reliably informed that appearing before it is a rather frightening experience: Baroness Manningham-Buller is a firm chair and Lord Irvine is prone to subject witnesses to forensic questioning – he is not the sort of questioner one messes with.
So if the questioning is tough, where’s the report into Lord Reynard’s expenses and when is it going to be published?
It’s good to have a clear and simple system. But the new expenses scheme is tilted against members like me who do not live in London and will spend half of the allowance on a room overnight – whereas those with a London home will do better. There is no expenses scheme that will ever satisfy those who are constitutionally opposed to the House of Lords, no matter what form it takes!
Actually its different.
It’s because of all the fraud in the Lords, and the coverup by Pownall, the clerk of parliament, making it a state secret what has been going on, because it would bring you into disrepute for us to know the truth, that I’ve come to the conclusion that you should all go.
The new system is designed to extract more money with less questions. ie. Avoid all the nasty little issues such as is the money actually being used to support people in their ‘work’ in the Lords.
It’s also why its a state secret when you turn up at the Lords. You don’t want people knowing that Lords sign in and leave, in order to claim expenses just like MEPs turning up on Friday morning with suitcases in hand.
The failure to deal with the expenses is a prime example of why you are not fit to run anything.
Whatever happened to that nice Lord Taylor who used to blog on here?
Guido Fawkes: Having read your blog earlier today, I think you already know.
Where is the report into Pownall handing out expenses for second homes when there is no record of any second homes existing.
It is his duty of care for public money into how he handles the Lords finances.
There is a gross conflict of interest for him to investigate what has gone wrong with his handling of public money.
It’s even more of a travesty for the report to be made a state secret on the grounds that the Lords would be brought into disrepute by it being published.
So Lord Talyor is just a start. The rot is far deeper and goes to the heart of what’s wrong with the Lords.
For example, why is it a state secret as to which days you turn up?
So why is not a criminal offence to sell changes to legislation for cash?
Still not a criminal offence is it.
Mind you Phillip, can I quote you from an earlier post about this.
You don’t think its a problem to accept cash do you, because they wouldn’t have got away with it.
Lady Deech: It does seem on the face of it that the new system favour that group of peers who are London based. What figure have the Lords chosen for the mileage allowance?
One of the oddities to come out of Parliaments embarrassment on expenses is where does an MPs ‘salary’ come from? We all know that it is paid so who is the employer?
Mps do not have a formal job description but have responsibilities instead:
4. What is an MP, and how do you become one?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/spconf/239/23908.htm
Paragraph 86 explains the employment status of an MP as essentially ‘freelance’ self-employed. However, the same paragraph goes on to contradict itself by saying “He or she receives a salary from the state”. Here is evidence that the employment status of an MP cannot be determined yet they prescribe employment status within their Finance Acts. Most Bizarre!
In relation to Baroness Murphy’s post questioning a graduate tax, paragraph 75 says 72% of MPs are university educated. Of the new intake 2005, 89% were university educated and in the ‘Characteristics of the new House of Commons’ below it says of the 2010 general election that the number of graduate MPs has increased to 90%.
How representative of the population are MPs?
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/the-new-parliament/characteristics-of-the-new-house-of-commons/
In terms of the Commons it would appear that an employer would be unable to absorb in any way the costs of a graduate’s education because there is no employer. Is it any wonder that both universities and graduates have become victims as a consequence of educational tunnel vision by this house?
If Lloyd George felt that a small income would encourage ordinary people to become MPs then his dream is now well and truly shattered. I suggest once more that entry to the Commons as an MP should not depend on an arbitrary degree unrelated to governance but on a set of vocational qualifications gained from within Parliament beginning at NVQ level all the way to Doctor of Philosophy.
MPs at any educational level would come to the Commons at the median salary for their constituency. By obtaining Parliaments vocational qualifications they would see their income and career prospects improve over time in concert with measurable educational attainment. We spend about a billion pounds on the Commons annually only to see its MPs arrive to learn on the job making it up as they go along. We deserve better, much better! A Commons for the common man, nothing less will do.
Senex: You raise a fascinating question. There is, as you indicate, a serious question as to what exactly is the employment status (and job description) of an MP. There is a similar issue as to the peers: we are not employed as such, so what is our status? We are, I gather, holders of a dignity. As to whether MPs should have specific qualifications, I certainly favour extending the existing provisions for induction – they are better than they have ever been, but deserve to be taken further. Should there be some training between election and taking up one’s seat? Should there be training throughout the first year in the House? It is an issue I am pursuing in relation to ministers. Training is available but I am having difficulty getting the Government to say how many ministers have availed themselves of the training.
Senex. I think there are two problems in that. Just because you know that X is true or the objectively best way to deal with problem Y doesn’t matter much when party politics makes it better to pretend something else is true. It’s sadly pretty common to watch MPs you know perfectly well don’t believe a word they are saying.
On LGs paying MPs – It has problems. We’ve now moved to a situation where many MPs are career politicians whose ability to work outside of politics is limited. Thus they are more dependant than ever on staying in the cabinet/Cmt Chair or just as an MP for financial reasons.
Are there any peers who do not claim the expenses ?
I look at people like Lord Sugar, who probably jumps in his chauffeur driven limo at the end of a day at the House and wonder if he needs to claim. Not that he shouldn`t, I just feel possibly he doesn`t need to or some maybe altruistic.
Baroness Deech if ones stays for three days /two nights one claims £900 + travel expenses under the new scheme.
Under the old one would claim £86.50 x 3 = £259.50, 3 x £75 = £225.00 and £174 x 2 = £348 giving a total of £832.50.
Therefore under the new scheme you are better off by £67.50.
One has to look a little deeper at the accounts to get a clearer view.
Carl.H: On your first question, the answer is yes. A number of peers do not claim any expanses and some do not claim the full expenses which they are entitled to claim. I gather this accounts for about a quarter of the House.
It’s a very difficult balance to achieve. On the one hand the public don’t want peers to be able to “siso” as Our Masters in Brussels can.
But on the other hand we don’t want some ridiculously complicated system that costs loads itself.
I think the balance is about right.
Chris K: I rather agree. There is no ideal solution and the new one is somewhat arbitrary – there are bound to be some peers who will be financially worse off and others better off – but I think we have probably got the balance about right. On the one hand, we don’t want to create a situation that prevents peers from attending and contributing. On the other hand, we don’t want an overly generous system that provides a financial incentive to attend. The driver to attend should not be money but a sense of public duty.
Off topic note:
My Lords the new ” The Lords Explained ” doesn`t to me, it appears unclear and has at least one grammatical error:
“The House of Lords has generally has more debating time than the House of Commons”.
It does not clearly set out in easy English what the function of the House and it`s members is. It appears to me, unfortunately, similar to how I would expect a GSCE student to explain it. My apologies if I offend the author.
I admit that this comment may seem a little self interested, but I have been, and hope to continue, working as an assistant to members of the house of lords, mostly doing research but also other things. Most of the Peers I work with are very busy people and I think I can help them to do a better job, although I realise many peers neither want nor need this sort of help.
The new expenses rejime appears to be a direct attack on my ability to do this, both because it reduces the money available to peers to do their job and because it ceases to recognise that some of this expense involves paying for others to help in their office, either performing secraterial or research tasks.
I may turn out to be the only person to be concerned about this, but given how much many peers workload’s are inctreasing at present it seams shortsighted to reduce their ability to seek employed assistance in carrying it out, and may well increase their dependence on external lobbyists, which after all has been the primary source of complaints.
Croft: You confuse me by your reply.
Quintessentially all an executive requires of their backbenchers is for them to vote with their feet. You do not require a degree to do that just a personal and moral sense of what is right and wrong within your political affiliation.
If we are to debunk the stereotypes that surround MPs then entry to the Commons must be a level playing field with no imagined barrier. Perception here is everything.
To hold a GCSE ‘D’ grade does not diminish ones sense of political right or wrong. I see no objection to this ‘Dunce’ or a degree holder both arriving in the Commons at the same time. It would be their ability to succeed in obtaining Parliaments internal competences through measurable education that would decide who went forward or not. It would favour the degree holder but at least the ‘Dunce’ would have equal opportunity.
The present arrangement of MP income on new intake is an insult to the public and a guaranteed accusation of gold digging. There must be sacrifice. For a medical doctor or barrister entering the Commons he or she would enjoy a pay drop to the median salary for their constituency. For the ‘Dunce’ he or she might see a pay rise. Both situations would be perceived as honourable.
Although the pay scales would differ on entry success in the first exam on competency would see pay scales become equal. It would not stop the non achiever from voting when required to do so.
Progression and pay would increase over time with ministers having to attain a very specific level of competency in both governance and scientific management. Overall, progression would be set by Parliamentary exams not external educational attainments; they would be helpful, but essentially redundant.
Simon (I wonder if you are the Simon who had tea and strawberries on the terrace with me not so long ago), I agree that the new expenses, being a 10% reduction overall, do dissuade one from engaging researchers for one-off jobs; I think Baroness Deech agreed with that too.
Overall I think the new total all-in allowance system is easier to audit and though modest is considerably less so than appears because it is untaxed. My main concern is how will we decide when we have done enough work for a ‘full day’ and one where only half is allowed. I shall be serving during recess on one of the Leader’s Groups; the meeting will only be 2 hrs or so but will mean coming down from Norfolk in the early morning and not returning until late afternoon. So that will rule out doing any other work, like writing, that day. Then there’s the voluminous reading required beforehand. Will I call it a day or a half day? Well I haven’t decided and I’m not sure how I will.
I’d just like to respond to Carl H’s question about those who don’t claim any expenses. There’s quite a lot that don’t and I personally feel they do no-one any favours. What other job do people do where the rate of pay varies according to one’s personal circumstances? In every day life some folk have savings, some folk have rich relatives, some have expensive dependents but we pay the going rate for the job no matter what. Income tax and CGT takes care in part of the inequities. I would much rather therefore that we received a taxable allowance that was ‘paid’ to us and we didn’t have to claim. Tax would take care of the great diversity of wealth among members and perhaps more of the ‘plutocratic element’ would feel less like they are doing us all a charitable favour.
“I agree that the new expenses, being a 10% reduction overall”
Please explain the 10% reduction? As you will see from the figures I quoted above I think it is a small increase, dependent on how you claim.
“What other job do people do where the rate”
Thousands of people do voluntary work because they KNOW they make a difference to the people of the Nation. We are not all politicians and simply in it for our own greed.
Ask not what your Nation can do for you but………
Would my noble Lady perhaps, like most self employed, like an hourly rate ? Where on the day mentioned she would be payed just the two hours ? The preperation does not count, I spend most of my time keeping up with data, however I cannot charge for it nor for my journey time.
Putting a job description and a salary to the work changes the constitution. Before any type of Senate can take form it needs very careful scrutiny and the will of the people. I would be against such.
In the world outside of Parliament tax authorities grant dispensations to companies that have people who work away on a regular basis. They are reimbursed by the employer for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the duties of that employment.
These reimbursements are from a tax authority perspective a taxable income. The fact that a dispensation has been granted means that such expenses do not have to be declared in the annual returns for these employees. These costs appear in the company’s accounting journals as a profit and loss expense to be set off against taxable profits. A very sensible and practical arrangement; there are three checks on abuse. Firstly the employer, secondly accountancy ‘audits’ and lastly, random spot checks by the tax authority itself.
For the Commons, the question remains one of, just who is the employer? There is no single employer but a notional employer in the millions of people and the thousands of companies that pay taxes. For the HoL things are worst still because there is neither an employer nor a notional employer. This is why Parliament has been forced to set up administrative bodies to administer expenses. These bodies have become the notional employer.
Whilst companies and the public have three checks on expenses the checking authority of Parliament has only two, the authority itself and public domain publishing of individual itemised expenses.
One could argue that the Human Rights of Parliamentarians have been breached in that balance sheets for small companies are not in the public domain nor are the individual itemised expenses of the public in the performance of their employments. However, neither house has formal employments just responsibilities, duties and dignity.
This is why the blog’s prospectus for an elected house has its expertise employed by incorporations that exist outside of Parliament. Peers would claim their expenses from their employer just like anybody else. Parliament could pay a tax free sum to the employer to pay for costs. However, this would probably not be acceptable because there would be a perceived loss of independence, it would not address the needs of political peers and it would be complex.
Its viewpoints like Simon’s that lead me to the conclusion that Parliament might better be served by a consolidation that brings its expertise under one statutory body, independent and external to Parliament that serves its research and other need as an HM Parliamentary Research Service. Expertise in the HoL would be enshrined in a small number of eloquent expert peers that interfaced to the PRS, most of the existing expertise would move over to the new body. The PRS would be an employer from a tax authority perspective.
And why would the Commons tack on to the end of a pensions bill, a tax exemption for their own expenses?
Tax havens for MPs, pain for everyone else.
Retrospective taxation? Yep, they are pushing that.
Retrospective changes in fraud laws? Yep, that was done for the Atorney General.
Our top-priority task is to quickly identify fallacy, and to exclude each fallacious context from ensuing conversation, discussion, reasoning, argumentation, debate, and decision-making.
————-
Herein “Expenses” is pre-loaded with fallacious contexts, that have gone on down to become fallacious-lifestyles.
Parliamentary expenses also means Money-Getting & Money-Spending, in particular point here, Taxpayers Monies.
This in turn must take us downwards, through every underlying Cost stratum upon which any particular parliamentary expense-topic is thereafter perchedthe £300 per day full-attendance allowance for Upper House seated-members.
((( e.g. One could argue that most of the Lords’s (and Commons’s) two-way factfiling, discussion, reasoning, argumentation, and debating could take place by “online-conference”, such as from the majority of members’ homes, without requiring them to travel to Westminster simply in order to participate and have equal speaking-time; and that this would reduce the daily participation-allowance for one Peer to far less than £300 or £150; to possibly say between £10 and £50.)))
—————-
That the Commons can be seen as a much more complicated , costly, extravagant, less-expert, less-unbiased, and less-legislatively-efficient, Place does not make the Lords ultimately efficient, affordable. and long-term sustainworthy in itself (Tu Quoque fallacy) and for its long-term People-governance and protection duties (within the latter of which we still need to be wary lest a fallacy such as Ad Captandum has been concealed within the overall talk and contextualisation).
—————
That both the Commons and the Lords are fraught with, and still founded upon fallacies and fallacious-argumentation does not make The People any more enabled to scrutinise and proactively-correct those flaws at The Top nor the similar flaws in their/our own ‘popular’ formal-logic, moral-reasoning, and life-experience evaluation & entrenchment.
—————
That those who are highly paid and empowered to be the Keepers, Watchdogs, and Authors of our National and international Factfiles, Rules and Skills of Discussion, Formal-argumentation, moral-reasoning, clarity, charity, cogency, validity, debate, media,and truth standards, namely the Monarchy and Establishment, House of Commons, House of Lords, Judiciary, Civil-Service, Education-Community-Religious Sectors, should be not simply falling short and dangerously-failing in the identification of true and valid reasoning, in the spotting of fallacy and in the exclusion of such statements and argumentation from the governance-table and in far too frequently, irresponsibly and deliberately using fallacy, is becoming a terminal-disease from which no civilisation, not any other nor our own) can rescue us.
———–
Therefore our most urgent and highly-important task is to identify Fallacy, right at the outset of any topic, proposal, or governance-argumentation.
=================
Since identifying fallacious-content at the outset will undoubtedly save a lot of time and verbiage, I am prepared to commit my future comments and replies to it.
In due course, probably within the next four-weeks, I thereupon further expect to be in a position to commend such fallacy-spotting to all others, of whatever station in Life or Democracy they happen, or have chosen, to be in.
JSDM1327M16Aug2010.
LB: On your point of retrospective law; is it Ex Post Facto law? You seem to suggest that it is and as such is morally wrong?
One of the reasons I came down so hard on Baroness D’Souza when she lunched with the Law Lords was that she thought the Supreme Court was Supreme which it is not. Parliament itself is the ‘Supreme Court’. It’s another New Labour, I want to look like a republic, cock-up.
Although we are signed up to the EC Convention on Human Rights, Parliament can still in theory exercise the power of Ex Post Facto law something banned under this convention and overrule any laws set down by the UK Supreme Court; this by virtue of the UK being a sovereign state with a sovereign Parliament.
The problem we seem to have constitutionally is that this Monarchy comes to us courtesy of the Scottish Monarchy and the Nobility no longer has any real connection with the nobility of conquest yet Parliament is still steeped in conquest along with its privileges and power as enshrined in the executive. Ceremonial French you must remember is still spoken in the chamber of the HoL.
So when you make your criticism of Parliament you are essentially a Saxon ‘Lord’ complaining about the overarching power of the Normans. The distinction between the two disappeared many centuries ago but is still evident within Parliament itself.
Ref: United Kingdom; HM Revenue & Customs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Will retrospective taxes affect us all?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8496921.stm
So its it correct that Parliament decides that it doesn’t like the laws and the effect of those laws that you and it created (you have to take the blame), that they decide to retrospectively tax what was legal?
Even the current tory government says that retrospection is wrong but carries on anyway.
ie. You want to have your cake, and other people’s cake too after the fact.
It’s the same with the Atorney General. The regulations were change retrospectively when it came to her expenses so as to avoid a fraud charge on top of the employing illegal immigrants.
So, back to a direct question on the Lords.
Why can’t we see what’s in Pownall’s report into expenses? The one where he investigated his own handling of dishing out money to lords.
LB: The problem is that Parliament cannot offer the people constitutional representation on taxes people because changes to the constitution require the consent of the three estates of governance, the Monarchy, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Given that the public are in a notional master servant relationship with their MPs, employment wise, it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Historically, the HoL has always had the right to give scrutiny to Finance Acts but the people gave up that right and must now enjoy whatever the all powerful executive puts their way. When the house becomes elected it will be in a position to protect the people once more but only if the political parties desire it. I fear a crisis will provoke the change of heart.
Given that the public are in a notional master servant relationship with their MPs, employment wise, it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog.
======
Quite. You have no say. None. Even the PR farago is just another way of rearranging deck chairs. You won’t be given any say on any issue that affects yourself.
For example, would you like a vote on MPs or Lords expenses?
Fat chance. [*** the remainder of this post has been removed is it breaches the terms and conditions of the site ***]
I suggest that whether they are known and written or not, the British People have many more Codes of Conduct than the new subsidiary one somewhat un-strongly taken on board by the House of Lords very recently; and most if not all of these Codes are required in the name of Lifesupports-for-All-British-People, the Money to buy them, and the protected-wherewithal environment within which to use them.
An email this week from the Lords of the Blog’s Hansard office prompts me to “help Peers to comprehend” whatever I submit.
so I need to share my response, with both Peers and the participating-public (People).
“Dear LOTB Hansard,
Very many thanks for your email, about the idea of the Lords of the Blog e-site being to “create a dialogue between Peers and members of the public” and how best to enable this e-site Blog to work at its best, and giving a few guidelines or “rules” towards achieving this…
But (and a very big and neccessary BUT this is, sir) I detect a singular Lack of Win-Win-Win Intention, in most if not all of postings by Peers and responses by People.
Notably we lack enablement and commitment to having and sharing an initial overall strategic Glimpse, of the Big Overarching Context whereunder the particular Topic chosen by the posting-peer most centrally would appear to sit, or to be ‘fidgeting’;
and similarly we lack an initial strategic-glimpse from the public responder, of ‘the alternative field’ as known to the responder within which the peer’s-topic should be said to fall.
Failure to be continuously tackling this essential win-win-win preliminary, for achieving the “short, on-topic, and clear posts” (sic) that Hansard and the Peers think is necessary simply as a “help” for the Peers to sift through the “opinions” and “get an idea of the different perspectives of those contributing to the blog”, is tantamount to clear basic-failure in both democratic-governance and in public-problem-solving.
————
Sir, this email is about 290* words long:
Would it both sufficiently and clearly encompass relevantly Respective Needs and Issues ?
Yours sincerely,
John Miles. 1310Th26Aug2010. ”
——————
In particular, Lords Expenses budgeting is the current ‘tactical’ topic here; but more importantly there lurks *both* the Overarching and Underpinning greater-issue of our modern Need for more Growth-Mindsets, especially for a more realistic British Win-Win-Win Democratic Governance *and* our secondary Need for fewer wasteful Fixed-Mindsets (throughout The People as well as throughout our Governance-experts) ?
———
And if the above reply is inadequate in any way, pray what would be a more thorough and objective ‘snapshot’introduction to both the Lords-expenses tactical-topic and the more important overarching win-win-win Matter** ?
————–
.* Hansard’s email strongly recommends limiting one’s post to 250 words. Which, given the herein-recommended preliminary Background and Bigger-Picture ‘snapshots’, I think should be more than sufficient.
.** “the more important Matter” = progressively better Growth-Mindset Budgeting in Government; and majorly increased and instituted multi-way Win-Win-Win Methodology for use by The People.
==================
Yours sincerely,
JohnSydneyDentonMiles (JSDM jsdm jm and jm).
1310Th26Aug2010.
But (and a very big and neccessary BUT this is, sir) I detect a singular Lack of Win-Win-Win Intention, in most if not all of postings by Peers and responses by People.
=======================
In spite of the front page bit about encouraging a dialogue, its not the truth. The mods have said clearly its for the Lords to tell us, and then we get to comment, if we get past the black hole of the comment system.
ie. It’s one way. You’re not allowed to start a topic. Don’t you know your place?