Yesterday afternoon in the Commons, just before the debate on the Lords’ Amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, the Speaker announced “I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a substantial number of Lords amendments. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.” Thus the Government, by persuasion of the Speaker, ensured that the Lords would not be able to further discuss the provision of the Bill. The Lords’ amendments would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The Commons spent all afternoon systematically voting out all the Lords’ amendments.
Formally, as the Leader of the House Lord Strathclyde said in our chamber, “Matters for privilege are not a matter for the Government but a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons on advice from his clerks. The position of privilege has of course been jealously guarded by the House of Commons since 1671. It is well precedented and there is nothing unusual, although the second Chamber might always think that the Commons using financial privilege is a little unfair.” Just a year ago the Constitution Committee considered ‘Money Bills and Commons Financial Privilege’ (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldconst/97/97.pdf) and concluded that in any reform of the House these privileges would need to be re-examined.
But of course the Leader’s statement did not fool anyone; the Clerks in the Commons would have been persuaded, and probably quite easily given the financial implications, of the merits of using the Financial Privilege to scupper further delay by the Lords. There was considerable anger in our chamber yesterday afternoon about this decision. Personally I felt the use of the Privilege was unnecessary, the Lords usually agrees to abide by the elected Commons’ decisions after one bout of Ping Pong. But Cameron must have known that the press and public were largely on the Government’s side. Quite what rump of the bill will return to the Lords for discussion is a mystery although apparently something will appear next week.
I shall be abroad for the next two weeks and miss the excitement of the return of the Health Bill. I’ll catch up with it on Day 3 of Report Stage. Lord Owen is plotting rather noisily against almost all the Bill’s provisions and the Minister Earl Howe has tabled a myriad set of new amendments for the Government which take account of our discussions in committee. At least we know that the Government can’t throw out discussions about the Health Bill on the basis of financial privilege since few have financial implications.
Firstly I am absolutely appalled that the life of myself and my son are once again attributed to “cost” and how expensive we are. For a bill that is supposed not be about money, the claim continuously comes back that it’s too expensive to amend a bill which, in the long run, will save NO MONEY WHATSOEVER. Taking the support I currently get to direct it to a mythical most vulnerable (we don’t actually know who these people are, because I know people who are completely paralysed who are looking to lose care) is only going to cost MORE as care and charities are stripped of funds. In the long run I am going to have to apply for MORE money, MORE help, MORE support from the state, not less.
The “majority agree with the government” is also a farce – if that was the case then why is the House of Lords received email after email of people terrified of their futures, hoping to even a scrap or a shred of hope and knowing the Lords would listen? That the government decided to pull out an archaic law to try and batter-ram their own goals in tells me, if nothing else, that they knew they would never be able to get it passed otherwise – which means they KNEW THEY DIDN’T HAVE SUPPORT AT ALL.
To claim the Health bill has few financial implications is a ghastly statement to make…and I’m only grateful that not everyone in the House has such a completely out-of-touch view in what this bill is doing to my life.
This bill has made disabled and desperate people very angry indeed – that the House of Lords is also now absolutely furious does not bode well for the Government at all.
“why is the House of Lords received email after email of people terrified of their futures, hoping to even a scrap or a shred of hope and knowing the Lords would listen?”
Because the Lords, being able to give a Trumpington[*] to the Whips, are more likely to vote after careful thought than following like sheep to the designated lobby. This is likely to be lost when they’re all elected and are expected to give their support to a party machine.
[*] Also known as a “Harvey Smith” to those old enough to remember.
This “Financial Privilege” ‘squib’ is still putting the ‘”Cart before Horse”;
You already know the sine-qua-non base-line, for both survival and thrival, that I author, or subscribe and promote:
“One human being needs but one human-living”
and you can already see all the source references I have so far put forward via Lords of the Blog, for this thinking and persuasion
(just “Edward de bono’s Thinking Course” should facilitate a good paradigm-shift, into Sustainworthiness-building which I say is more vital to have in place than mere ‘economic-sustainability’).
But for a helpful and clear glimpse or two of many Facts and Factors in this bottom-line of
“1 human-being needs ( = ) 1 human-living –
(but 1 human-being = 2, 10, 100, 1000 human-beings is false, being either a Delusion or an Evil-Malfeasance, or Both)”
let me suggest Oliver James’s “Affluenza” (e.g. paras 2, 3 and 4 on page xvi
“…conflating what we want with what we truly need…”
Please add this to previous evidence-sources I have submitted, such as David Attenborough’s and the scientific-teams’ appearing on his “How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth” TV documentary;
and
the “Ecopolis” series featuring Nobel prizewinning young scientist Prof Kammel.
Yet surely with some bitter irony, the more human-livings Oliver and indeed “Unpaid Ministers” are (over-)drawing from the Common-Purse, the less their credibility in the as-it-were Final-Judgement-Process and Decision-Making ?
(it is a bitter irony that I myself, just as a single pensioner, have been entitled by the British Government to draw one-and-a-half human-livings from the Common Purse;
but then at least notionally that still should make me some 50% credible,
whereas some-one drawing £400 per week has a credibility of 0, already.
So, some-one drawing £2-million (£38,461.538 per week) has such a large credibility-deficit that in a real-sense the only reason they should be kept-alive is on the compassionate ground of their Mind-functionally-deluded insanity and need thereby for detention-and-treatment in a long-term psychiatric-institution**
(**itself a place of flawed floors, tables, and charlatans, due to the similar collectivised-delusion of the Psychiatrists themsleves, that they are each ten-or-more human-beings)
————-
Therefore, noble-peers and participants, one and all, surely this issue of Parliamentary Financial Privilege urgently needs deeply serious, unequivocal, and incisively-analytical Scrutiny, and re-Mapping,
before being pressed-forward any further ?
It was obvious from the start that no matter what, they were going to push it through. They have an agenda and they want to get it through as fast as possible before they get voted out.
I do hope you enjoy yourself abroad for two weeks whilst those of us affected by the past week has to choose whether we heat our homes or whether we eat.
I take comfort in the thought of what comes around goes around and one smug politician will in the future get his come uppance.
@Sharon Morgan:
I was not at all surprised to read this morning that this government, akin to the Blair creatures administration here in the UK under the alias of New Labour, is close in bed with the USA on our health management, as the main objective for the US is, as always, to rid this country of its NHS and dip their fat paws right into the tax payers of this countries pockets. All in order to take over the purchasing within it.
US management consultants, McKinsey and Co, have had their snout pressed hard on the process of, are you ready for this, drawing up the ‘Bill’ on this matter. Unelected Americans involved in our government on policies of health. Something their own country is in complete and utter chaos over. And where they literally die by being refused treatment if the man in the street does not have some thieving insurance policy to cover him.
What the ‘Americans’ are blatantly after, and being encouraged to do by our government officials, is replacing our bureaucrats in the NHS with private, for profit, companies, which are US owned.
This is against the will of the people of this country, and who, when voting for the coalition, were not told openly of the agenda they had for the demise of this tax paid for necessity called the ‘National Health Service.’
Surely, this has to raise the question of ‘no confidence’ in a government who would be assisting a ‘foreign agency’ of this kind to steer us into such a deviant practice.
Time to call for a general election on the grounds of ‘duplicitous manoeuvres’ against the best interests of our citizens. This is a direct policy to remove the NHS as a free at the point of use entity into a pay or you die service.
And the Lords as well as the Commons must be totally aware of what is going on. It’s another ploy for the rich friends of the right to invade our tax payers money at will.
This must be challengable on the grounds that the amendments do not call for more spending as is currently required – but for less cutting. However reputable the Speaker of the Commons is, it cannot be right to give him the all the power in making a judgement-call of this kind. The involvement of the Lord Speaker would be a good start …
Ostensibly this 500 year old “parliamentary financial privilege” is a rule put in place by those who (one-way, top-down, oligarchicly) ruled Britain back in the 17th century,
and appears to prevent the House of Review from making class financial gain or gains out of altering (in their own ‘higher’ favour) any Commons Bill involving monetary expenditure;
Which to our common mind now appears ‘Insane’, because surely every Bill involves and contains Costs ?
So, no response yet to my above submission ?
Maybe from where you sit ‘up there on high’ our low-down needs,concerns, and sufferings may look ‘off-topic’?
But from ‘down here’ where we are, at the £300 per week affluent-lucky-top-end
of the 6 billion or so serious and responsible Earth-citizens drawing much less than one-human-living each from the Common Purse,
“financial privilege” is close to being a ‘Warmongeringly’ Torturous and increasingly Urgent Big-Issue.
Simply but by no means simplisticly put,
How on Earth can one-human-being “need” and be judged “worthy” to be many more human beings than one ? to the tune of as much as a bank-manager, one-human-being, “needing” food, drink and other lifesupports to the value of 400 human beings ?
how could she/he drink, eat, and consume and eliminate, that many lifesupports ?
And how can some other, but by definition equally, one-human-being be judged and forced to be less-than-one-human-being ? by force of Law having to both survive and thrive off less than one-human-living ?
———————-
Let me give a further ‘little’ and ‘off-topic’ perspective upon this matter of “financial necessity”
Locally (Plymouth UK) there is not only no affordable organisation supporting and further-building one’s Health
there is no GO, NGO, nor PO (‘Private’ Organisation) affordable or otherwise, to help the individual, and a few individuals mutually-grouping, to be maintaining and further-improving their Holistic Health and Longest-Term-Sustainworthy-Wellbeing.
That is a factual scenario;
And here is a factual result therefrom:
Person A (personally-efficient upon one-human-living £200 per week) has given up smoking, given alcohol, taken up walking instead of private-carring, improved diet to reduce fat, salt, sugar, and chemical-additives intake, and is general striving to be a lifesupports-conserving Earth-citizen[
So s/he is managing to save £50 per month, specificly for the purpose of becoming able to support membership of such a Health-Building membership as indicated above.
S/he has also written to all the powers-that-be, about this need, and attempted to join in public-forums including on the BBC (where his/her questions are always judged along with 95% of all the Others’ questions, to be “off topic” and therefore round-binnable, not worthy to be carried either forward or upward.
Many months pass by; this would-be-sustainworthy-Earth-citizen, minority-of-one, lone “self-improver”, having accrued several hundreds of £s in participatory-democracy-and-human-improvement-earmarked savings;
But some sage advises that “it’ll take as many millions, to form that sort of Health-Building Association (mate); you’d stand a better chance through the Scratch-its Cards !”
So there s/he now is, sitting on the edge of his/her single bed, every few months wisely plumping several-hundreds of £s into a whole Roll of Scratch-it cards
(that way the probability of winning a £Million is much better than merely buying one card per day)
and is ‘winning’, immediately, and regularly,
But never yet more than a third of the amount s/he pays-in.
——————-
Is that the “wealthy leading democracy” your “financial-privilege” is entrenched to be Building ?
Interestingly, the Lords are denying 3 FOI requests of mine.
The current Clerk Of Parliaments has signed a document making what 3 peers were up to a state secret.
Since the questions related to what scams they were running, the Clerk has made them a secret on the grounds of Privilege. We aren’t allowed to know what they were up to because it would threaten the Lords.
There are two conclusions I think you can draw from this.
1) The Lords was involved in the fraud, and knew what was going on. To release the information them would expose this, so it has to be made secret.
2) The Lords now know what is going on, and is covering up and protecting its reputation by protecting those involved.
The Peers are Hanningfield – convicted, Taylor – convicted, and Uddin – not convicted, but she hasn’t paid back illgotten gains.
I’d be interested if there is any other reason for making this a state secret.
Then in general, should government be keeping and making a state secret what the people we pay have been doing with our money?
@ Lord Blagger:
this is a question of knowing your ‘rights’ to an answer under the FOI regulations. And we all know our parliament has despised the FOI from the start. It mean openness and transparency, something they spout on the hustings but detest in reality. As one day, that same obligation may catch them out in their fiddles.
All you can do is research and persist. As well as expose.
Dear Baroness Murphy,
Please do not worry about the House of Commons use/misuse of The Financial Privilege Amendment.
Matters have moved far beyond that now.
A heartfelt thank you to the House of Lords (though reservations about Lord Freud) for a genuine and humane effort to make the Welfare Reform Bill fair and fit for purpose.
However, as certain MPs in the other place are determined not to listen, and trample all over the democratic process with the Financial Privilege Amendment, there are those of us disabled who have some sufficient limited ability to make sure the people at that other place now allegedly culpable in 17 welfare reform related deaths face an investigation by the police. The numbers are evidenced and collated for reference at http://www.calumslist.org
Yesterday at 10am Chris Huhne had his proverbial collar felt when he allegedly broke road traffic laws. As a lawmaker himself he is likely to have an interesting experience during the course of this year.
However, as their are people in the other place who have far greater sins to answer for, they are likely to have their collars felt in a far more serious manner.
Alleged homicide of disabled and vulnerable people at an inexorable rate is something that justice will not stand idly by and let pass without some action.
Kind regards,
Calum.
What the Commons Speaker has done in this matter is despicable. They are turning out to be a bunch of gansters who only see their position in that chamber as the ‘main chance.’
And, how is it the ‘Lords’ are letting them away with it? There must be, because there always is, a get out clause of some kind. And this is no exception. The Lords can swat up on their ‘rights’ and use them to thwart this overbearing unsavoury bunch we have foolishly managed to be swamped with.
Of course the majority of them are a set up of one kind or another. Short lists and those worked in because they fund the party in one way and another. Or, nepostism of one kind or the other. Those unable to find a decent stint anywhere else and so allow thmselves to be used as pawns in a game of ‘whip the poor’ akin to the board in Oliver Twist.
Voters must really become more research oriented in future elections and find out just who and what they are voting for and in reality, what is being offered to them. As well as who is running their constituency offices. Who are they? How did they get there? What have they done for you? Who are they related to? And is their background really the kind of forerunner likely to produce what you want in a parliamentarian? For a lot of them sell themselves for the hell of it, along with their fun run for power. Look at that guy with the strange face and a fetish for women who strip, Opick or something as stupid, or, Lembit, was it? Not going to look him up. Ugly and peculiar, who could have put an X in his box? The point being, he was no parliamentarian and had no right to win an election.
But for now, it’s up to the ‘Lords’ to stand by what they feel is fair and proper for the people of this country. Are the people getting justice with this creepy move? There is no point to power if you don’t use it with integrity.
Clinging to a political party line is not worth the demise of our country, nor for the immense suffering of a nation as a result.
I think the 26 ,000 cap is a brilliant idea i mean people walking the streets on benefit with 26 grand in there pocket is a joke, in reality people on benefit are lucky to have 26p in there pocket. The finacial privilidge the goverment are using sounds about right for a goverment not voting in power and not in touch with the people who didnt vote them in
I’m at a loss! Here is the list of bills going through Parliament 2010-12:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/?group=date&order=desc
What I cannot seem to find is the cost to the economy of implementing each bill? It seems that both houses can come up with a theme, take it through due process and start without declaring the anticipated cost to the taxpayer or the economy.
Surely this cannot be the case; how can the Treasury plan ahead?
——
On a different note: for the first time we have just bought between us, both a Kindle and a Kobo (mine was a Kobo Touch). We decided that our hols this year would require us to read at least six books by way of relaxation so why carry them with us just pay and download them electronically whilst on holiday. I looked for Parliament ePubs but can only find PDF versions.
Brussels on the other hand:
http://www.brusselsstudies.be/en/our-publications
Offers a choice, not that any of this should be taken on holiday with you? Converting PDF to ePub destroys the format and reading PDFs on an eReader is awkward.
So what’s the plan for Parliament ePubs?
Senex, impact statements probably cover most of the stuff eg:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/household-benefit-cap-wr2011-ia.pdf
BTW, good idea about the ePubs (though I did think of The Dog and Duck sort first…)
@senex:
Cost to the tax payer is not something government takes into account when it comes to covering what ‘they’ want it to cover. Just look at the list you supplied. Getting rid of ‘Human Rights’ is top of their list. After selling the line that this court in Europe is the reason we have terrorist walking our streets that we cannot remove. Of course, not one of them wants to dwell on ‘who let them in in the first place and why they went along with such dangerous policies of open door Britain in order to secure slave labour for their ‘business’ pals.’ This was to keep pay levels to British workers down at all costs, regardless of what that would do to the citizens and lifestyle of this country. Whilst allowing the top of the tree earners to cream it off relentlessly.
It only comes into account when they are selling a notion to the public. Example: the cost of the poor, sick and disabled is far to high for us to continue with, as we, the wealthy, are being taxed out of our numerous luxuries. ‘My Island in the Indian Ocean will have to be sold orf if we go on this way. And the poor, sick and disabled are undeserving as they are worthless, whereas I, on the other hand, am a fabulous asset and worth all I can fiddle.
Take this showcase in the ‘Mail’ today citing ‘monopolies with multinationals’ and the financial threat this has become to us all.
They’ll be richer but we will pay the price’ is the headline. And if you feel that Hester and Goodwin, with the rest of them who are way bigger than those two sprats, are bleeding us dry, wait until this little lot get a hold on the commodities we all desperately need to survive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2097996/Glencore-Xstrata-merger-Theyll-richer-pay-price.html
Billions already, but, ‘never too rich or too thin dear,’ is how the mantra goes.
Look forward to global suffering from this pair of South African greed machines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098036/Glencore-Xstrata-Ivan-Glasenberg-Mick-Davis-56bn-mining-mega-merger-came-being.html
What then?