I got up very early this morning in order to read through another 80 statutory instruments for the Merits Committee. Nothing much that was noteworthy, but it is bad news that this enormous volume of new subsidiary legislation is being pushed through in the dying days of this Parliament. Corners are being cut in terms of consultation, and resources are being removed from, in particular, legal aid, without sufficient concern for those who will be affected. At the same time more and more new regulatory authorities and “strategic partnerships” are being created, without much regard to cost. I know where I would prefer to spend my money.
The public will be interested to know that a new statutory instrument (no. 646) has provided clarity in calculating the refund of excess social security payments by a formula set out in Rule 2 of paragraph (6) of regulation 52A of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 (c), as follows: 53x[((UAP – PT)x9.4%+((UEL – UAP)x11%)]. Well, that’s all settled then.
The pressure to get all these new laws through arises from the delay and uncertainty surrounding the calling of the general election. The sense of decline and depression all over Westminster has been around for a year or two already, intensified by the expenses scandal. Most of us cannot wait for the dissolution, to get the decks cleared and sort out our diaries for the next few months. So many events and commitees are shrouded in uncertainty. Listening to Simon Schama on radio 4 this morning talking about his annual longing for spring to arrive, and then the newsreader starting the bulletin with “on the cusp of spring”, I recognised the feeling. I want the end of this winter of parliamentary discontent.
I wonder when we’ll get a Statute to limit the overspending of public money by MPs etc?
“At the same time more and more new regulatory authorities and “strategic partnerships” are being created”
It is said that our civil liberties are being eroded all the time; an exhibition in Bloomsbury at the end of 2008 made a big impression on a Vancouverian friend of mine, to that effect.
More human rights… far,far less… civil liberties. Still I don’t live in a town, so perhaps I have nothing to fear, but If this were the city of Rome ,the whole of the UK would be covered by the Civil authorities, who do the infringing.
Wars loom; population depletion follows; more space for the those who remain. Does that have to be the way?
Being a post war baby boomer has had its blessings, mixed ones.
My Lady I have every sympathy for your cause but am bereft of answers as to what can be done. Watching “The Peoples Politician”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rl8q7/The_Peoples_Politician/
last week we saw the divide between people and politicians. Ann Widdecombe perhaps summed it up by stating no matter what the constituents think I have the vote. We also saw from this program that whipping is an issue, something a lot of us have been concerned about.
Unfortunately the wash-up wasn`t mentioned in the program and we have seen posters ask questions of exactly what occurs, I believe it was Croft who asked directly. No information has been forthcoming.
This appears to have been the winter of our discontent but are the new plans for reform simply more subversion as they appear. The moving out of the Law Lords to Supreme Court, the apparent moves to have Lords elected and what of the Lords Spiritual ? It appears deliberate moves are afoot to break up Parliament as it was meant initially to give more power to Government. If we look at the history of the HoL we can see that Government has slowly taken power in it. Parliament was meant to represent the whole, that is Religion, Law and all the sciences through Temporal Lords this is being corrupted, subverted by means of Governmental design.
Whatever comes out of the reform I believe will only be good for the HoC whose members are whipped by the few. Who are content that what they say is correct and doesn`t need scrutiny by anyone else. I can only hope the HoL resists some of the Bills that may come with regards reform as I do not believe all will be for good.
It has been not New Labour but old Labour and the signs are there for anyone to see, more and more administration and costs, needless waste, the creation of posts in power and control shifting toward them at all times. The politics of the Unions has never left and no matter what they say there is little representation of the people.
The Lords maybe listening I do not believe Parliament is.
Since I persuaded Tony Blair to declare that it would, without fail, be a five year term for the government when it got back in, perhaps I should also be the one to declare that the election will be on the same day as the local government elections in May, doing so since the First lord dropped by a few months ago, on his way to his West country bolt hole and asked me to do so, in keeping with his excellent sense of economy, and Treasure keeping over the last 13 years.
He wants to keep the least important decision to the least important person, which is why he stopped by, for a moment to ask.
What the precedents are for his not declaring it, I do not know!
Remind me what we pay you handsomely for baroness? And remind me how much per annum?
Or maybe you should remind yourself. Better still, go tell it to the proles.
Baroness Deech as far as I`m aware is not a Committee Chair or Deputy so no salary is applicable.
Attendance allowance day £86.50
Overnight Allowance £174
Expenses allowances detail can be found in the booklet here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldpeers/ldpeers.pdf
More on Allowances here:
http://www.parliament.uk/faq/lords_stats_members.cfm
So all in all a lot less than a Working Girl would cost you for the day and of far more use and value.
Apologies for the analogy my Lady.
Carl. H: Committee chairs and deputies are not paid. I speak as a former Chairman of the Constitution Committeee. Only the full-time posts of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Chairman of Committees are salaried. All other committee chairs (there are no deputies) are unpaid.
Apologies LN, I was going by the second link above which states :
“Which office holders in the Lords are paid?
Three office holders in the Lords receive a salary:
Lord Speaker: £106,653
Chairman of Committees: £83,275
Principal Deputy Chairman: £77,689 ”
Some clarification for mere mortals is appreciated, thank you.
Carl. H: It’s useful to know that the information isn’t clear. We may need to think of ways of explaining the difference between the posts listed and the chairmanships of all other committees.
I`ve been tring to find out what occurs in “wash-up” and find the information in Emergency Legislation which I find slightly extraordinary.
“3.1 The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel
Under the heading Emergency legislation and other legislation to be passed at speed the OPC website notes:
Sometimes legislation is needed in a hurry and has to be rushed through both Houses. This can happen because of a situation that needs urgent legislative attention or in the wash up before a general election.
In those circumstances, programming in the Commons is seldom enough to guarantee speedy passage. Other motions and procedural steps will be need to be taken.
For instance, an allocation of time motion (“a guillotine”) may be needed. Unlike a programme order, a guillotine can timetable the Second Reading of the Bill. The guillotine, or separate procedure motions, may make provision for other matters (such as enabling more than one stage is to be taken on the same day, enabling financial motions to be moved between stages or allowing amendments to be tabled before second reading). Sometimes everything will be dealt with in a composite “business of the House motion”.
The procedural aspects of passing legislation at speed have to be agreed between the OPC team and the PBOs in both Houses. It is essential for all involved to know what is to happen when. For that reason, it is necessary to give the OPC team at least some time to talk to the PBOs about what is needed. The GWOs in both Houses will also need to be involved.
The OPC team will be able to advise on what is necessary, will liaise with the PBOs and the Whips and will draft and put down any necessary procedure motions.
When things are moving fast, there are obvious advantages in ensuring that drafters are on hand whenever they may be needed. The departmental team and OPC team should talk to each other about what arrangements should be made for this.
In a wash up all the different OPC teams involved will liaise with each other.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldconst/116/9040102.htm
OPC = Office Parliamentary Counsel
GWO`s = Government Whips Office ?
PBO = Parliament Budgetary Officer ?
I`m sure I had something to lobby about this morning – but looking at the latest price list I can`t afford it.
Only a few more weeks my Lady, I`m sure they can`t make it any worse, can they ?
😉
Oh dear it appears they can and have….
Now what !
400 occasions of regulation breaking foreign aided, paid for, trips abroad.
Now all they have to do to celebrate this Parliament is bring out the “nine bob note”.
Here’s one worthy of scrutiny:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/draft/ukdsi_9780111491553_en_1
Section 4(2) where all of a sudden they’ve raised the bar for forms of identity required to prove age. Of course, any hint that this is to encourage take-up of ID cards is purely coincidental, because at present it’s only ID card, a passport or a photo driving licence that comply with this new order. I suspect many young legal-age drinkers don’t have any of those.
This is why so many SIs are bad – I haven’t even checked to see if that one even requires Parliamentary oversight or not, but I consider it a good example of why there are too many bits of secondary legislation.
I think that MPs and Lords should be volunteer positions. Most of the politicians sitting in Commons are corrupt and if they had to do it for free, i.e. no remuneration, there might not be so many money hungry people putting themelves forward, thus no overspending on house allowances etc. The other alternative would be that they should have to live on minimum wage and pay their own housing out of that! They claim to represent the people, well, try living like the people who you supposedly represent, most people are not earning 6 figure incomes so if you had to survive on 18K a year, could you do it? I did for far less, I was a single mother and lived on 4K a year and NOT public funds either! I bet you couldn’t do that! I worked and earned my own money to pay my own way AND I was a stay at home mom to my child, 4K a year, not too bad if I say so myself! Now Baroness Deech, could you do that? Probably not!
Sue: You conflate MPs and peers, when there is no comparison; MPs are salaried and get additional cost and other allowances. Peers are not salaried and cannot claim other than limited expenses. A peer living in London, and not in receipt of any outside income, but who attended two-thirds of the sittings and relied solely on expenses, would indeed have to survive on circa 18K a year.
Lord Norton,
Thank you for your explanation. However, there is the expense scandal and what I am saying is that both classes of politician should have to pay their expenses out of their own pocket. Housing, stationery, travel, etc should all be their out of pocket expenses and not the tax payers’. Touché, a peer can survive on circa 18K per annum, now could a peer survive on 4K per annum like I did? That would be a very interesting experiment and the subject of a very interesting documentary. Don’t you agree?
Sue: May I suggest you volunteer to do a job over two-hundred miles from where you live, travel there each week and spend two or three days doing the job, and see if you can survive without any support towards the expense of so doing?
Lord Norton: As I said before, the MPs put themselves forward for the election, they should have to do what everyone else does and pay for their own living expenses, I had to work two to three jobs AND I did volunteer work along with supporting myself AND a child, and as I said before, I was a stay at home SINGLE mother to that child (without child support from the father too)! I didn’t have to pay for childcare because of the nature of the work I did, I was a Virtual PA. You said I should travel 2-300 miles away from where I live, work 2-3 days and then travel home again, well my goodness, that means that I can work 2-3 days at a job in my home territory to fund the volunteer position as a Peer or MP! Employers have to give you time off for political duty when you are a local politician, so presumably they would have to do the same for national politicians. 2-300 miles is nothing! I have driven 1800 kms by myself and didn’t even blink! 2-300 miles is approximately 4-500 kms – that’s a walk in the park for me! That’s only a few hours train ride and if you book your train early enough in advance, you can get a First class ticket for next to nothing! You can get Standard fare for even less than that. You can work on the train journey and work in the office. In this day and age of computers, it is possible to log into your office computer from anywhere in the world. So it is indeed possible to maintain your regular employment, AND carry out your political duties. You also get time off every 6 weeks like the schools do, so you can recover from the intense schedule and then there are the Christmas and Easter recesses and you more than likely have a summer recess too. Perhaps if the MPs had to struggle to survive financially like everyone else in this country does, it might take them down a peg or two and they would not forget their ‘humble roots’ nor the people they promised to represent. If they can’t maintain the hectic schedule of commuting and working as an MP and then going home and working in their regular job, maybe the life of an MP isn’t for them, or they could do something else to raise their funds. I’ll tell you what, I’m feeling very generous, the tax payer could fund a hostel type of accommodation, for the MPs and Peers (who don’t already live within 2 hours commuting distance from Westminster). People who go to university have these types of situations and pay a lot of money for it each term to their university. They also have to share toilets and showering facilities and then eat cafeteria food. That would be a far more economical way of housing Peers and MPs than the luxury properties some of them claim for in the posh parts of town and it would also eliminate a housing expenses scandal in one fell swoop, don’t you agree? They would never have to keep their stories straight about which home is the ‘main home’ and which home is the ‘secondary home’ and change their minds to suit the decorating or renovations that they have to carry out. That is a win-win situation for everyone! Tax payers are happy because the amount that they are paying for their MPs is very cheap (to stay in university for 1 school year is about £4 – so £500 per month – based on an 8 month university year) and then the cafeteria food is on top of that and THAT should come out of pocket for the MPs because of various dietary requirements. The MPs don’t have the stress of worrying about two homes to maintain the upkeep for and they also don’t have to worry about making mistakes in their housing allowance claims. Perfect! That works for everyone. And if the MPs are MP couples like Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper and they have children, well, that’s their tough luck isn’t it? They could either find their own flat, or they could leave their kids at home with people who have been thoroughly vetted under Balls’ scheme and CRB checked and then they too could stay in the hostel. If the MPs only work 2-3 days per week in Westminster, they would do that, leave their kids in their own home, and commute to them rather than uprooting them. That can’t be good for their children, can it? I mean, were their children consulted and asked their wishes when he and Ms Cooper ran for and won the election? Probably not!
Sue: You seem not to have read earlier posts and seem to have no idea of what is entailed. Some of us do book train journeys in advance, work on the train, and some of us not only work seven-day weeks but work during the parliamentary recesses to catch up on our paid jobs. The overnight accommodation allowance for peers is limited and we can and do utilise cafeteria in the Palace of Westminster to keep costs down. Again, you completely fail to grasp the difference between MPs and peers.
Lord Norton, I do not fail to grasp the difference between a Peer and an MP! What I am saying is ‘If you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen!’ You chose that, whether you were appointed or you inherited your position, you had the option to decline the appointment or abdicate.
An MP chooses to run for election. This is very similar to the life that I live now, I have chosen to take my child out of state school and home educate (but let’s not get started on the low quality and standard of state education here). I work around my home education responsibilities which sometimes means working from 9 pm until 2 or 3 am, getting up at 5 or 6 am and working until 8 or 9 and then providing an education, maintaining a house and making sure that our schedule runs smoothly and that I provide the education and get my work done. I have a responsibility to my child AND to the clients whose work I carry out. So I essentially work around the clock, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t have sympathy for your plight, I have enough to do these days. You may say you have no choice, but you do, you can step down from the post if you can’t handle the responsibility, just like I could either quit my job or put my child back in school. I receive no funding from the Local Education Authority to provide this education despite I pay Council Tax and part of my Council Tax supports the education system!
You will have to forgive me but all of this moaning about expenses that the people in the House of Lords and House of Commons do sounds a lot like whining and trying to justify your positions! See, look I’m worth some money here, I work for you you need to pay me!
Peers know that they will receive no remuneration in the form of a salary from this and they still choose to carry on anyway. If they have no other position then they will have to come up with another way of funding their lifestyle that still comes from their initiative and not a silver platter.
I am inclined to agree with Sue. If some SAHMs were in charge of the country’s wealth (er, hem) we would see the debt polished off pretty rapidly. It appears quite evident to most of the public that MPs are paid too much and make up the rest of their funds through injudicious use of the public money pot. There is quite a groundswelling of anger in citizen land. I can understand how distanced Westminster can seem to be from people that MPs are supposed to represent, but running a government where every day there are more and more ridiculous laws doesn’t help.
May I congratulate you on the idea and practice of setting up the Lords of the Blog.
Perhaps we could all reach a consensus on where we wish our beloved country to end up through this necessary forum.