I am slightly nervous of using my first LordsoftheBlog post to be slightly controversial.
I was given good advice when I moved up the corridor from the Commons to the Lords: “Remember they are very different, the Lords is much friendlier & it pays to be more consensual.”
I have been mindful of trying to find the right tone away from the Punch & Judy of the Commons, whilst still providing effective scrutiny of the government who are doing so much that I disagree with.
But at times you also have to tell it the way it is.
I have been struck by the great expertise of my peers in the Lords on all sides, but I’ve also been amazed at the inadequacy of some of the ministers’ answers from the Dispatch Box.
Now I am first to acknowledge the tricky task they have. They are answering for the whole of Government and are expected to at least cover the whole of the Department they work in. I also know that ministers can have an off day in the Chamber. They are paid to do a tough job.
However there have been too many occasions when ministers have tried to interpret questions in as narrow a way as possible to avoid answering or hide the lack of homework. When they have said that they are simply not briefed on the question, even when answering a statement. One I think even said “you’ve got me there”. That really isn’t good enough to meet the demands of the Ministerial Code, the Lords Companion or to show proper respect to the House.
I was therefore most encouraged by Earl Attlee’s answer yesterday (see Hansard) when he said in answer to Baroness Howarth:
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I take on board the noble Baroness’s point about brain injuries. They are devastating and often mean that the victim can no longer take a full part in society. Obviously I answer for Her Majesty’s Government, and I shall raise the noble Baroness’s point with health ministers
He acknowledged that he is answering for the Government and his duty to give us an answer. I hope this means the message got through.
Incidentally, whilst I was appalled at the content of the answers to my housing question by the minister she did at least directly answer the question:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on social housing, is it not the case that if you cannot find a job your HB is cut after 12 months, your rent arrears mount up, you are evicted and you become homeless? Equally, however, if you find a job with an adequate income, you are also likely to lose your home and be encouraged to move into a different form of tenure. So, fail to get a job and you are out; get a job and you are out. Is that decent?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I think it is.
A shocking answer from Baroness Hanham, but a clear and direct one!
Welcome to the blog my Lord, we hope to see much of you.
Regarding controversial subjects, I feel this is not one, though I feel the quoted interchange between Baronesses Hollis and Hanham was taken a little out of context.
There will always be great difficulty being upto date with information in Government so I think the Ministers do a hard job, that said like you I feel they are lacking in answers too many times. That includes from the last Government too.
Housing and jobs in terms of the cuts are somewhere I feel we shall share some ground as the Government go back to the ways of Thatcher & Tebbit, “on your bike”.
I understand the reasons for a Government cap on rents, which addesses the issue of greedy Landlords. However bringing Social Housing rents into line with the private sector, as I have stated elsewhere, is a mathematical error in terms of finance. 2/3 of Social Housing tenants claim Housing Benefit & Council Tax credit, putting rents up will bring more into that area. The amount gained cannot outweigh the income this is basic math.
Yes by lowering the amount of benefit available the Government will glean a little, or so it thinks. What will happen is more cash jobs, more criminality to cover those costs. From street level I hear the mutterings of the criminal classes already stirring.
At the same time we`ll have less Courts, less Police, less prison spaces and less civil servants to deal with things. Sounds a great idea doesn`t it ?
So who will suffer ? The honest decent caring people that`s who !
Yes welfare has become an addiction to some but like all addicts they need help to get off of it. Take it away and who knows how they`ll react. The problem is taking away welfare whilst also taking away jobs. The Government of course want to say there are plenty of jobs, there aren`t and there will be less next year due to their policies.
We`ve all I think seen the nice graphs and tables produced to show the cuts are equal across the earnings range, even though they maybe incorrect imho. The problem is this, 5% of a poor persons pay is spent staying alive whereas 5% of a rich persons pay means no Ferrari this year. The payback maybe even but ask yourself who had the most out of it in the first place ? Was it an even percentage then ? The answer of course is NO. So the poor are paying the rich`s debt.
Straight forward taxation from source was the answer, applied equally across the board but gutless politicians are too afeared of the electorate for that and think we don`t see the stealth taxes.
So what have the poor to look forward to next year, less Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, a rise in rents, a rise in VAT, less jobs, more criminality, less Police and the end of the Tory/Lib-Dem Government. Yes one by one the Lib-Dems will leave their Tory lapdog leader who without a shadow has betrayed everything they ever stood for.
Oh what a fascinating time we`re all in for!
I tend to think some of the problems you suggest are related to the relative power/influence of Lords’ ministers who are generally at the bottom of the food chain and therefore unable to step outside their very restricted pre-prepared c-service answers. In this respect when Lord Mandelson was in the lords it was a good thing he made policy rather than simply repeating others decisions.
Still I admire your chutzpah for raising this considering some of your own ministerial answers 😀
Welcome to the Blog!
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/lord_knight_of_weymouth
Let’s get the measure of you?
Very strong for a wholly elected HoL. Sounds promising.
Voted for removing hereditary peers from the HoL. Ah! Could be a problem?
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
Those Roman fishing spears were never very good anyway, much better with a rod and line?
Elect the Lords!
Quite right Jim!
Great to have someone who will always be one of the people’s tribunes in ermine.
Your honest, assiduous and determined work will hit the spot, and grind the b********s down.
Hello now Lord knight.
What’s much more vital than such provisions being “Decent”, will they be “sustain-worthy” ?
A propos the House of Lords being less punch-and-judy and more consensual, let me mention Lord Soley’s quite good score for Clarity, Charity, and Self-Correction-preparedness in some of his blogs.
Currently also, Lord Hylton’s interest in “win-win-win” possibilities might bear mention, please see his “My Speech in Foreign Policy Debate on 1st July 2010”;
and therein please register the Sources given, in my submitted long “generic” reply to his specific question, posted 0859 Sat23Oct.
Preview quote therefrom:
“… such ‘social-siege’ climates as the global-recession…could be very conducive to very low-cost local neighbourhoods ‘win-win-win’ generic-education advances, and thereupon subsequent better democratic empowerments”.
+++++++++++++
JSDM0911t23Oct2010.
The comments by B Heigham only show cause.
The effect is to make such people the chattels
of the council, further than they were before.
If they do become homeless, and it is curious how few homeless people there are in the winter time, then they have a caravan on the heath.
The lowest end of ‘Van on the heath’ is drug addict near to death.
These things are carefully graded, both upwards and downwards.
Clergy do visit, tend and care for the homeless in an exceptional way.
Hold on a minute, Lord Knight:
You say that Baroness Hanham’s answer was “shocking”, but “a clear and direct one”.
To which question was Hanham’s off-handed short hand-off addressed ?
(a) Is it the case that if a person cannot find a job, their arrears mount up, and they are evicted, and made homeless ?
(b) Find a job and you are also likely to lose your home ?
(c) So, lose a job and lose your home; find a job and lose your home.
Question: Is that decent ?
To which comes the utterly directionless and senseless aside from the minister Baroness
Hanham “My Lords, I think it is”.
i.e. (a) My Lords, it is decent that one shoujld lose one’s job and lose one’s home.
(b) My Lords, it is decent that if one finds a jon one loses one’s home.
(c) My Lords, it is decent that fail to get a job and be made homeless, and succeed in getting a job and be made homeless.
=========
0315Sn24Oct10
I’m not sure there’s a convention that maiden posts on LotB shouldn’t be controversial.
In any case, I think that the convention that that maiden speeches aren’t controversial is silly. Lords Maiden Speeches should be controversial, just not partisan; Lord Norton’s is the ideal in my mind: set out a broad philosphical approach.
RE- the “clear and direct” response from Baroness Hanham: so the logic is that it’s only decent for social housing to be available to ANYONE for a maximum period of 12 months. Why not just build a huge refugee camp for the soon-to-be thousands of unemployed and / or social housing tenants, and instruct housing associations to sell off any remamining assets and simply wind up? No doubt (speaks the cynic) there are entrepreneurs out there eager to buy any available stock for buy-to-rent purposes (inc some among the government) – major obstacle: a refugee camp for 2 million? The YMCA would need to expand greatly and, woops! little money for building, little money for the voluntary sector. What on earth is Baroness Hanham thinking of?
The private rented sector is still subsidized by local government since those who cannot find Housing Association homes may find private sector homes.
Wilts and Dorset have not lost any of their
public rented sector since they formed the Magna HA just before Thatcher’s Govt made the rules, and are still building plenty. There are several other huge Quasi public sector Housing associations round the country, whose names I do not know.
Who pays the part-buy mortgage, in a part rent/ part buy agreement, when the tenant/purchaser fails to pay either the rent or the mortgage interest?
Why not just build a huge refugee camp
Why not just build a huge refugee camp
Isn’t that what they are?
There’s a close similarity with the Lords. People well past their sell by date, hanging on for financial gain.
The same is true of social housing. Instead of being a safety net, people are living in social housing well past the time they have any needs for it.
For example, take Ken Livingstone’s side kick. Living in a council property whilst earning tens of thousands.
Both need a considerable clean out.
Senex states that you voted for removing Hereditary peers from the HoL. Ah! Could be a problem?” I do not think my reply is quite the same problem Senex was referring to.
According to the Treaty and Act of Union 1707 clause XXII there should be 16 Scottish Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords and 45 Scottish MP’s in the House of Commons. If that is not “held” the Treaty could fall and that would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As there was only Hereditary Peers at that time and as there are Hereditary Peers still, there is no excuse for them not to serve.
The break up of the UK could also cause a problem for the EU also. There would be no United Kingdom any longer to actually be in the EU. Out of it, as one MP’s once said, by, “events dear boy, events.
Celebrations for a full week, I should imagine.
Twm O’r Nant should get out and about more. Yes, there are some old council estates with an air of deprivation akin to that of a refugee camp, but the reasons for such deprivation are multiple and complex (including, for instance, the allocation policy of the relevant body – housing association or local council – that can sometimes send “problem families” to the same estate, creating ghetto areas of anti-social behavior).
There are also many properties owned by HAs or local councils that are not on housing estates at all: to believe that social housing = estates = social deprivation is a rather monocled vision of the UK’s housing situation. In any case, cuts to a housing budget that will result in less repairs, less maintenance, less upgrading will only add to the air of deprivation that does exist on some council estates. Has anyone involved in the spending review seriously thought about the social consequences of their proposals?