I want to comment very briefly on a curious visual phenomenon. One of our respondents, Wolfgang, commented that there were not many people present in the Chamber during Lord Norton’s debate on constitutional reform last thursday. Well I was there for much of it and you’ll have to believe me, the Chamber seemed quite full. Not packed out like it is at question time, after all debates are generally attended only by those who participate and a few who come in to listen to part of it, but it’s strange how empty the House looks on TV when it isn’t actually empty in reality. It’s the same phenomenon as when a photographer takes a group photo. He has to persuade everyone to move far closer together than they would normally stand in order for the finished photo to look well composed and without gaps between people. Can anyone explain why this is? It’s been puzzling me since I first watched the parliamentary channel.
It hardly seem`s full, possibly 60 on the benches ?
A screenshot from the begining of the debate:
http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/bits/LNS.jpg
And the whole debate streamed by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8534000/8534359.stm
An excellent debate by the way, and my Lords should be congratulated on most of the points put forward. It was heartening to see the House want to evolve and move forward and especially the emphasis on more public input.
I have one or two issues with the idea of more private committee`s as I believe one of the members had and the Lord must be saluted for holding up his hands for stating he did not alway`s understand what he was actually voting for at times.
As far as the House feeling full, my Lady is obviously popular and surrounded and the opposite bench aligning to gaze upon her.
” that they are just turning up for the congenial club atmosphere”
That was one of the purposes of the design of the HofL in the first place, to give it a London club feel, which architects succeeded in doing.
It’s a club and if you want to discuss in more detail, go and do it publicly, when the subject arises…. and if it does not…
The problem is that whenever I look at the Lords on the TV, I sit there for 5 minutes and do a head count. You have to wait till you get a selection of TV views, and you will be lucky to see more that 50-60.
However, we do know that there are apparently lots of committees, and they are all in committees. However, last time you brought this up, I put in a FOI request to the Lords. Now the FOI department at the Lords is one of the only efficient FOI departments in the UK.
On the day in question, just 8 Lords were in a committee.
L. Bradshaw
L. Dykes
L. Freeman
L. James of Blackheath
L. Paul
L. Plumb
L. Rowe-Beddoe
L. Walpole
Quite how there were 50-60 in the chamber, 8 in committees, and still on average 400 turn up each day.
So unless you got some more conclusive evidence that they are just turning up for the congenial club atmosphere, where you get paid for turning up, I’m sorry but I don’t believe you.
In the meantime, let me pose you a question. Lord Rennard has recently be let off on his expenses because the Lords don’t have any record of what was his main residence.
Why have you given money to Lords when you have no record of their second residence(s)?
Damned one way or damned the other.
Wolfgang: You really must learn to read what other people write rather than just keep hitting the ‘send’ key for a comment you posted ages ago. You might also learn how to use the Internet to find out what committees are meeting: committee meetings are listed in advance and the minutes of the meetings (including attendance) is a matter of public record. I have made the point before – and unlike you I don’t intend to keep repeating it – about what activities occupy peers when not in the chamber or in committee. Many spend a great deal of time at their desks, dealing with what is nowadays a substantial volume of paperwork for peers. This evening is another case where I am at my desk – it is nearly 10.00 p.m. and I expect to be here for another hour or so – and I am not the only peer still working in the office: there are two Baronesses also at their desks. So I have a question for you. How many peers were at their desks on the day in question? Once you start looking at activity outside the chamber and the committee rooms, you start to get a more rounded picture. Taking limited data, as you incessantly do, fails to convey the work of the House.
Are you saying that the House of Lords lied in response to an FOI request?
When you try and distract from the answer by childish comments about using the internet, the reply was from the internet.
That’s why I did do exactly as you said. You don’t like the answer because it doesn’t justify your position that you’re a wonderful bunch of people.
We have no evidence that you do anything bar what’s available on the web or the news.
Attendences at committees – ****** all on the day in question.
Attendence in the chamber – again a smattering from the TV.
Now for all those speeches. Of to Hansard to see how many times peers say something or even write a question. Again hardly any.
For example, you’ve made more meta posts here about what you do than you actually have made speeches or asked questions.
Paid to blog seems to be the order of the day.
Perhaps it is the depth of thought which makes the difference. I am not going to pay Lord Norton the complement that it was, but that may be the explanation!
Content is king!
A washing up machine may have a spin cycle first and a wash cycle afterwards, unlike a
Washing machine, so there may be something in the … epithet of “wash up” It’s a long time since I used one.
Surely a washing up machine is more commonly known as a dishwasher. The effect of the spin cycle could be spectacular.
I’m always disappointed by the apparent numbers in the debate compared to the numbers recorded when there’s a division. I appreciate that there are other things going on, but how many party peers (as opposed to crossbenchers) turn up and go where the whip tells them to? Same for the Commons, they turn up and someone else has already done their thinking for them and tells them which way to vote.
What’s the point of standing up and verbally ripping a clause of a Bill to shreds when the decision on whether to amend or drop the clause is made by people who weren’t even present for the debate?
Perhaps those who attend the debate should have more of a say in the outcome?
There don’t seem to be shots of the cross bench from Lord Speaker’s end.
Perhaps it is due to the number of ‘non-doms’ who daren’t show their faces for fear of the exposure in the press..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100027867/lord-ashcroft-reveals-he-is-a-non-dom-but-intends-to-stay-in-the-lords/
And there are lots of non-doms on the Labour side who funded Labour to tunes of millions.
The assumption is still there, that they bought their peerages by giving money to a political party.
Statistically the evidence is very strong.
Lets look at your productivity.
For the session, we have Hansard.
April 2007 – March 2008
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/ldallfiles/peers/lord_hansard_2048_od.html
and
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/ldallfiles/peers/lord_hansard_2048_od.html
[Hansard isn’t in line with expenses]
You spoke in the chamber on 21 days. You spoke in committee on 2 days. Total of 23 days.
You however claimed for 117 days last year you claimed.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoLallowances0708.pdf
Looks like a prima facia case for Spanish practices.
Wolfie
Thing is, Citizen Smith, one day in the distant future you might actually have a point but, as with Aesop’s tale, no-one will bother to listen.
Oh dear. You don’t like being caught out do you.
Don’t forget its you who have claimed you do an awfully useful job, worth all the 2 grand a day that you cost us.
However, when your own records show that you don’t actually do much work that the public can see or check up on, compared to the number of days for which you claimed expenses, you don’t like the answer.
Wolfie, Oh dear, do you work? I guess possibly you don’t do the kind of work that entails a lot of preparation or desk work. You seem to think that the public face of parliament is the whole show. In fact I was in the Chamber this week for a long session in committee on the Personal Care at Home bill and this afternoon and evening on the Equality Bill Report Stage and listened to a good deal of other debates out of interest. But my main work relating to the Lords was in meetings, in the Department of Health (a whole afternoon on the implementation of the research aspects of the National Dementia Strategy with Phil Hope the Minister), two hours of letter writing at my desk, several meetings with other peers on specific amendments, a meeting with NHS colleagues about a pharmacy order, a lunchtime launch of the NICE guidelines on the treatment of schizophrenia, three hours entertaining visitors etc etc
The legislative processes that you see on the TV are an important part but only a small part of what we do. Nor is it necessary to be up on one’s feet sounding off all the time to make an effective contribution to the Lords; it’s not a cabaret performance. In fact it’s better to speak less than more but be clear what you are saying when you say it.
Look, its simple. We pay you. You are our servants. However, you think, Mary Antoinette style that its the other way round.
So when it comes to work, we expect to see what you are producing. Are you turning up when you say you are.
The answer from the evidence produced by the HoL is no.
ie. Any compentent employer will check what time you sign in or out. What you are doing. Set targets as to what you have to achieve. Check on expenses. Have solid rules in place to make sure that isn’t abused.[1]
The Lords doesn’t act as a proper employer.
You still persist in Spanish practices.
As for all the time to write speeches. I’ve checked Hasard to come up with the number of times you spoke. Hardly productive are you?
You clearly specialise and have some expertise in one area. Why should it take a long time to write something as a subject expert?
I also propose something to you. Pick a new bill that comes to the house. Put a post up for each section, one by one. I think you will find that the collective wisdom of people on this site will be able to pull it to pieces far more effectively that 400 Lords
[1] Not surprisingly none of the Lords have replied to my question about selling changes in the Law for cash. When are you going to make it a criminal offence?
OK, I had the fun of visiting Parliament yesterday. Westminster Hall is very cold, St Stephens was roasting in contrast. Got to see a few minutes of Commons debate before heading off to the posh end.
I was interested to note that all over the place there are monitors giving details of current action in both Houses: current debate, who’s speaking, what amendment/clause is under discussion. I had wondered how everyone kept track of it, now I know.
Wölfchen: In an elected HoL that represented group identities, privately incorporated constituencies would pay expenses. These would be subject to dispensations and audit scrutiny by HMRC and the accountancy profession. Peers would be accountable to their constituencies for their performance in the house something that might effect their re-election prospects.
A peer’s salary when relevant would be divided between primary and secondary employments with the latter ratio dependant on attendance in the house. The quality of attendance would be defined in a private employment contract between the peer and their constituency.
The measure of attendance would derive from an improved fire safety procedure.
As peers are given to arriving and leaving the premises when they want it would be difficult for a fire safety officer to know who should be present at a fire alarm muster point when an evacuation of the premises had taken place as a result of a fire alarm.
As some peers are quite frail by virtue of an unremitting ‘Life Sentence’ they represent a special needs case contrary to the disqualification in Part 1 Section 7(5) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
A peer would have to record entry and exit from the premises at all times in order to comply with the fire safety procedure. There are many electronic based systems that can do this without peers having to physically ‘clock on’ and ‘clock off’ during the day.
This electronic record or other record would be made available to the constituency and would be the legal document that the constituency would use to authorise attendance claims and salaried days.
In the meanwhile, the great sovereign divide between Parliament and the people means that muggles have no say whatsoever in this unelected institution based upon unaccountable favouritism, cronyism and appointed privilege by the Monarchy.
Ref: The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm