Lady D’Souza has ventured into the dangerous waters of the SSRB report on peers’ remuneration so I’ll do so too. I note the expected unsympathetic comments and expect nothing less to my blog too but think it’s right at least to tell you what people are saying in the tea room where the talk among peers was of little else last week. The SSRB Report itself is written in a demeaning tone; it implies because peers are appointed rather than elected that somehow work doesn’t need paying for and nothing should change until the house is elected. If this is a deliberate ploy to discourage attendance then it could be quite successful. There is enormous unhappiness among back bench peers which I doubt very much will be expressed in the debate on the Report next Monday because everyone will be towing the party line. Even the Crossbenchers feel cowed into accepting the provisions ‘because it would look bad’ if we opposed it. It is said that the House must show a united front in the face of public criticism, rebuilding trust. Poppycock I say. The Report suggests continuing largely as we are, in an unwaged but remunerated untaxed fashion, responsible for all our own office and research costs, dependent on other sources of part time income if we can find work of the kind where it doesn’t matter if you are called away at short notice! The lack of tax isn’t going to reassure the public either although there are plans for tax to be introduced later. Curiously the principles embodied in the report don’t apply to any other walk of life. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that when they are appointed to a job they don’t need to be paid (unless it’s voluntary work of course) or that their pay should take account of their existing personal circumstances rather than the principles of equal pay for equal work? While I am sure there are many people in the country who could fill these shoes better than me, I feel belittled by the implication that somehow my contribution is not worth paying for. Of course I accepted the terms that were then on offer when appointed but did not realise that there would be no support facilities of any kind and neither did I expect that 5 years later I would be asked to take a cut from an existing derisory amount to an even lesser figure. I understand the political posturing that has made all this necessary but like most people who have given up paid employment to serve in the Lords on a regular basis, feel we are largely being taken advantage of. Lady Hamwee, one of the hardest working front bench Lib Dem peers, whose knowledge of local government is second to none, expresses many peers’ feelings in her response to the SSRB report on line pointing out that the amount of work and the unpredictable impact on one’s diary is not compensated for simply by the privilege of membership of the House. Frankly I don’t understand why those peers who have acted fraudulently (allegedly!) haven’t been prosecuted; it’s also a mystery why the system of allowances hasn’t been better monitored in the past; it’s obvious that there will always be a minority of people who will take advantage of an unchecked system. But frankly that’s not my fault nor of the majority who have expressed dissatisfaction with the system for years. The papers imply that the daily rate of £200 per day’s attendance (that’s got to cover all expenses including employees, research and office costs and all travel and subsistence in London) is somehow generous. What planet are they on? Even the SSRB itself pays its advisors over £300 plus expenses for a two hour committee; the going rate for NHS non-employed remuneration to public bodies is £685 per day plus expenses (but taxed). Please don’t say “If you don’t like it go out and earn something”. I choose not to because of the fantastic privilege and fascination of contributing to legislation…but the deal feels exploitative to me and to many other back benchers who regularly contribute to the work of the house. Yours, Disgruntled of Norfolk and Westminster.
I broadly sympathize with the noble baroness
on the question of £200 not being a vast sum to do an effective job of work in either place.
I worked for six or seven years in the other place, without remuneration, and entirely out of my own pocket, because it was work I wanted to do, and, with the gracious permission of the Lord chancellor of the day, got on and did it.
It does indeed now cost £200 per day to do the work, if you go up for a day and go home the next.
It should be remembered that there are always a few members of the other place, with safe seats, and are cynical about it, who go up twice a year, and earn £65,000 per annum for it.
That, noble baroness, is the comparison.
It is not even the general cost of their Lordships’ house which is unacceptable; it is the sheer numbers of members. There are far too many and far too old.
May reform continue with the next government, whomsoever they may be. PR + LR !
Proportional representation and Lords’ Reform.(the latter to fit exclusively the new European arrangements)
Gar
Dear Disgruntled of Norfolf and Westminster,
Do I hear the rumblings of industrial dispute ?
The system is too complex, too much is hidden in both houses including a lot of the work. We desperately need a salary system that can be seen at a glance without delving into expense accounts and other things. See my post in Baroness D`Souza`s blog for more.
All I can say is good job it`s Brown not Thatcher else your picket lines in the tearoom would be heavily policed, just before you were all sacked ! 😉
In many respects Lady D’Souza should have the most to complain about. How she manages to ‘run’ the crossbenchers with the level of financial/administrative support the system gives her amazes me. I’ve often thought the Lords could do with some sort of pooled administrative assistants paid by the house for those peers who need 1/3 of a researcher. Certainly employing directly not via the member has advantages in terms of transparency.
On your other points I feel that it will probably take an mp/peer being prosecuted to really get some catharsis. Too many people have personal experience of or know people who have experienced the sudden demands for back payments from the benefits system, often in a threatening/intimidatory manner. That the rules were fantastically complex or the government had made the errors has not prevented many of the demands. So I suspect people are rather raw when they see or perceive parliamentarians getting off lightly.
As it happens, and to no shock as I rarely agree with the SSRBs decisions, I think they are wrong here. I can’t see the public being happy with a pay rise but I think the expenses at present are unrealistic though it may take a reduction in the size of the house – for the same costs to allow better remuneration.
“Please don’t say “If you don’t like it go out and earn something”. I choose not to because of the fantastic privilege and fascination of contributing to legislation”
I`ve a feeling this was typed in haste. There is something eerily wrong with the above statement and it possibly doesn`t come across the way it was meant. I fear my Lady will rue the day !
Curiously the principles embodied in the report don’t apply to any other walk of life.
The problem is that the behaviour of many Lords doesn’t apply to other walks of life bar Ford Open Prison for the reform of Middle class Fraudsters.
How many employer’s allow people to clock on and leave work straight way collecting the cash for a days work?
How many employer’s don’t demand receipts for expenses?
How many other employers pay for second homes? [In any organisation it will be a fraction of a percent, for a limited period]
How many employer’s appoint employees to positions on the basis of being friends, flat mates?
…
When you start behaving a though you were part of the real world, you might get a bit of trust.
The cost of your expenses it part of it. That’s your reward.
What about our cost? 2,000 pounds a day it costs to run one of you.
That is more than someone on the poverty line pays in tax for an entire year.
Don’t you think taking them out of tax is a better use of the cash compared to your cost?
Nick
Frankly I don’t understand why those peers who have acted fraudulently (allegedly!) haven’t been prosecuted; it’s also a mystery why the system of allowances hasn’t been better monitored in the past; it’s obvious that there will always be a minority of people who will take advantage of an unchecked system.
You are condeming yourself.
There are two sorts of peers. Those that abused the system, and those that let them.
Both groups have a lot to answer for. Why did you not stop the abuses? If you can’t control yourselves, why should we trust you do to other things?
You need to explain this
On 20th October 2009 Pownall issued a ruling that Rennard’s claims were “in accordance with the rules and guidance on Members’ expenses applicable at the time” [5]. Pownall’s findings were “in view of the assurances by Lord Rennard about the change in his circumstances and the time he spends in Eastbourne, and in the absence of any definition of main address in the current guidance to the House of Lords’ Members Expenses Scheme”.
If he hasn’t specified a main address, he won’t have specified a second address. Why is he keeping cash for a second address?
Nick
I think this was a toys out of the pram blog and I`m sure my Lady will regret it as I stated earlier.
Let`s look at derisory pay.
State Pension per week for a couple £137, from that pay all fuel costs, food and Council tax plus house maintenance.
Basic minimum wage £5.80 per hour, £232 per week on a 40 hour rate. Can you maintain a family on that ?
Lady Hamwee is right though, work does tend to have an unpredictable effect on ones diary. Ask any self employed person who finds himself frequently answering the phone at 10 p.m., on Sundays and every other available time. All the while whilst maintaining accounts and with everyone telling them they earn a fortune which isn`t true.
I will agree that if those in both Houses who, allegedly, acted fraudulently had been prosecuted and fired the matter would have possibly blown over. Like many professional trades though there is protectionism built in and perhaps legal argument they WERE within guidelines….Now there is the problem…No law on that one, just whimsical guidelines. It has to be put right now.
This is an attempt to put it right. Isn`t it extremely frustrating when people bring in rules/laws that appear so unfair to you ? When it`s difficult for you to have your say and your voice not be heard. My Lady, join the electorate we`ve put up with it all our lives. If I can`t manage on the pay or I`m being exploited I change jobs, I`ve no choice. Please don`t say we law against exploitation, ask the checkout girl on xmas eve if she likes being there then. Or the 365 supermarket guy on Christmas Day, or the nurses or the Security guys on the City buildings getting double £5.80 an hour and a day in leui if lucky.
You have stated clearly you prefer to be in the House of Lords rather than earn a living. Not only is this derogatory to all peers because they feel they do earn it, it will be seen as a child having a tantrum.
The probability is that from the position of privilege you will earn, or could, far more than the man who clears the blocked toilets in the House and he`ll have far more **** to deal with than you.
Baroness Murphy: Don’t loose heart but equally don’t burst a blood vessel. The Commons is on a collision course with the electorate and the nation needs the HoL to be there to pick up the pieces, if and when it ever happens.
You must not underestimate the ability of those younger than us to sort out our political system. They are watching Parliament, taking note and not liking what they see. But how are they going to effect change when the Commons holds absolute power and maintains its personal vendetta towards the HoL?
Its like a divorce where one of the parties remains constantly angry about the other. There is no point to it, just move on, forget it and get remarried. As you know I constantly blow a K.I.S.S to the Commons here on the blog.
The paradigm that the Commons represents is no longer relevant and many young people want to see wholesale change. They will get their way and the HoL must be there to moderate things. You and I will be long gone.
Lord Lucas who happily returns to the blog once said the house is no place for ambition or passion. He no doubt reflected the disappointments felt by many of his predecessors over a very long time. He was wrong then and is wrong now if he still believes this because the fundamentals of how the house used to be are sound, they just need updating.
As for paying your bills, join the club like the rest of us. Lord Tebbit is no doubt on his bike at this very moment, perhaps he is open to occasionally lending it out. Have you asked?
Baroness Murphy: Don’t loose heart but equally don’t burst a blood vessel. The Commons is on a collision course with the electorate and the nation needs the HoL to be there to pick up the pieces, if and when it ever happens.
I don’t buy that argument.
Why is the commons is on a collision course?
Because they have screwed up. Completely. They are on course to run up 2 trillion in bond debts, and that ignores all the other off balance sheet debts.
The Lords haven’t prevented this.
How are they going to solve it when they haven’t the wherewithal to prevent it?
What’s solutions are there to the debt bar default, huge taxes and huge spending cuts?
Well, I say “good for you.” Skill and experience ought to be compensated. Whether minimum wage is or is not enough to support a family is not the issue. Crafting legislation is not and should not be a minimum wage job. Honestly, what is better: to pay for expertise and research at the legislation stage, or to find out what the research would have told you years down the line when far more money has been spent implementing a failure? The thing that bothers me is that peers do not feel it is possible to convey this truth to the public. I suppose that is the legacy of so many years of party politics, and the fact that it’s difficult to convey the detail of legislation, or explain why the process is hard. But that is precisely why I value efforts like this blog. I’ve learned a lot more from here than from watching PMQs or listening to “Any Questions?” Please keep up your insights into how things really work.
Couple of points.
“SSRB” – I’m guessing you are talking about Senior Salaries Review Board, but why ass-u-me we know when it is courteous to point out any abbreviations at the outset.
“towing the line” – AHA! I see a get-out clause for you here – when asked to agree with these proposals you can say “The others are toeing the line, I am merely towing it”.
But as for the rest, I largely take your points. However, in economics the price of something is that at which a ‘willing buyer and willing seller agree’. The point is that in reality both people can seem incredibly unwilling, grumpy and curmudgeonly about the said price, but unless they are UNWILLING ENOUGH to call the whole thing off, they are deemed to be happy with the agreement.
It is like pay in any company – many [most?] will whinge about the amount they are paid, but unless the rate of attrition increases and hordes of people leave, there’s unlikely to be a major change.
It seems that there are a couple of key points here..
“Of course I accepted the terms that were then on offer when appointed but did not realise that there would be no support facilities of any kind and neither did I expect that 5 years later I would be asked to take a cut from an existing derisory amount to an even lesser figure.”
Well, I guess as a ‘willing buyer’ but now finding you are going to get less than you bargained for, you have the option to ‘call the whole thing off’.
“Lady Hamwee, one of the hardest working front bench Lib Dem peers, whose knowledge of local government is second to none, expresses many peers’ feelings in her response to the SSRB report on line pointing out that the amount of work and the unpredictable impact on one’s diary is not compensated for simply by the privilege of membership of the House.”
That is fine, but by at least weighing the ‘privilege of membership’ in the balance she acknowledges that there are some others who do value that enough not to want to give it up, because for them it is enough to tip the scales the other way.
“I choose not to because of the fantastic privilege and fascination of contributing to legislation…but the deal feels exploitative to me and to many other back benchers who regularly contribute to the work of the house.”
The key words here are ‘I choose not to..’.
I am sorry if this sounds unsympathetic, but that would be to miss the point. Governments have over the years exploited to the max the fact that nurses aren’t strongly unionised [well not by some standards] are intelligent and hard-working and public spirited. They may go on marches, but they are unlikely to go on strike, and even the numbers leaving for other professions is manageable.
So they have got you ‘over a barrel’ unless you do ‘stick together’ and make it clear you won’t bother showing up for work unless they treat you properly. There is of course already a tried-and-tested mechanism to help you achieve these aims. It is referred to in the jargon as a ‘trade union’.
Bert,
The question is who is over the barrel in this case?
It’s the tax payer. We are being forced to pay 2,000 pounds a day for a peer. Even though the lords are spinning like crazy that the proposal is that they get 200 a day, it’s irrelevant as far as the tax payer is concerned. The concern there is the real cost, not the pay.
In the real world, the standard multiplier is 3 times salary is the cost of employing someone.
Why the Lords cost over 10 times expenses is a real cause for concern.
That’s why I’m in favour of axing them.
We just mothball the chamber, stop paying them. 121 billion less a bit of maintainance saved.
They can then go into the real world and use those wonderful skills and make money, and start paying back some of the debts they have run up.
nickleaton, honey, if you think democracy is expensive, maybe you should try the alternative…
Well darling, look the cost of the undemocratic Lords.
No control over expenses.
Which Lords were in charge of the expenses system?
it’s also a mystery why the system of allowances hasn’t been better monitored in the past
Perhaps Baroness Murphy should stop trying to introduce more laws telling us whether or not its legal to parachute hampsters and put some effort into the mystery.
It’s not a mystery to me. People have been thieving money, and a lot of the Lords have stood aside and let them. Her comment is part of the evidence.
We pay them 121 million a year (plus the interest because the money is borrowed) and they haven’t got any system in place to monitor how the money is spent.
It’s a mystery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfdb_syzJSo
Nick
What a fascinating bunch of responses. I am sure those old friends who tried to calm me down were quite right, it was written in a hurry and thank you for pointing out the toeing and towing problem, Bedd Gelert.
Nick Leaton, sorry to respond only briefly but there’s not much point wasting my breath is there? Most of the costs of the House are attributable to other things than costs of members. Look it up in the annual report. We are paid less and have the least support for doing the job than any other bicameral western democracy. I know you don’t like the bicameral system; you’d have to explain how a unicameral system would work to scrutinise legislation to make sense of abolishing the second chamber.
Carl Holbrough, I’ll stick by what I said about the privilege and the fascination of making legislation, and of course it’s why I stay. Perhaps I ought to say again how extraordinarly lucky I feel to have been able to work all my life in a profession I loved and had the good fortune to be offered chances to do a wide variety of jobs in public service. I wouldn’t swap that for any amount of money. Hey Mark, if we were paid more I would definitely offer you a job as my PR agent. Keep it up!
Baroness Murphy. Why shouldn’t the cost to US as the public be the figure we should be concerned about?
Why do you constantly want to use the much smaller figure of what you take as the measure of costs?
It’s clear. You don’t want people to realise that you cost us 2,000 a day. Each and every day.
As for how a unicameral system would work, I’ll explain it again.
First there is the question of why voter numbers are dropping. It is because politicians do what they want to, irrespective of what isn’t and what is in their manifestos. They fail to fulfill manifesto promises, and they do vast numbers of things that they never told us about. In your case too we have zero democratic control over you. It isn’t democratic.
Secondly the only area politically that is growing are special interest groups. Collectives of people such as Greenpeace, to Fathers for Justice to web sites like Pepipoo (parking) they are all single issue unions of people. The only other unions are the public sector ones. There is a common thread to all of them. Citizen versus the state. A large part of the motivation is that the state is buggering the citizen in different ways.
So in order to get democracy working, we need to move to one man (or woman), one equal vote. We also need to give the citizen direct control over legistlation, instead of periodic control over who is elected to parliment once ever five years to rob us blind. (Or let others do the theiving)
Clearly it also needs to be cheap. We’ve 121 million a year to play with.
The answer is referenda by proxy. Lord Norton has stated they are more expensive, but he still hasn’t provided any evidence for this. Still waiting Lord Norton, or did you make that fact up?
How would it work.
1. When you register to vote you nominate an MP as your proxy.
2. Every 5 years you elect a representative.
So far, what’s the cost? 1 extra field on the electoral register. Effectively, its peanuts.
3. I would suggest a fee of 5 pounds if you want to change your proxy more than once a year.
Again so far, the cost is no change from the current system.
So when it comes to approving bills in their final form, the proxy can cast for the electorate.
Now comes the clever bit. I can see MPs setting themselves up as proxies where they will cast the proxies as the electorate tell them. They build and fund a website were bills are discussed and you as an individual can cast your vote. The MP promises to cast the vote according to the electorate’s wishes. The costs here isn’t paid by government. It’s separate from government. There is no cost to taxpayers.
So the end result is that over the next parliament, we would save around 630 million pounds by moving to this means.
Now the electorate gets to decide what becomes law.
Neat, simple, cheaper, better.
Still against it? Perhaps it would be because you would lose your club?
There are plently of other clubs you could join. Mind you, you would have to pay for membership.
The difference between paying £200/day to attend parliament and being paid £200/day to do so, is £400.
That may be the difference between political integrity and milking the system.
I can think of two who I have noticed to be thoroughly integritous recently.
Lord Avebury, who does vast amounts of Select committee work in the noble house, and in the HofC, Mr Briant of European minister fame, who recently remitted some wages, even before he had them, long before scandal broke loose
beneath Big Ben.