Forum Topic

Choices

Starmer and the complaints girl keep harping on a out harsh choices , lack of money, black holes etc.Can anyone explain the choice of creating 30 odd new members of the House of Lords at an annual cost of between £2-3 million a year. Depending on how many days they turn up for a sleep.

Andy Pike ● 76d15 Comments

Getting rid of the bishops should be the first move. Unlike quite a lot of hereditaries they have nothing to offer except a poor reputation for judgment.

Alexander MacLeod ● 73d

Sorry Andy perhaps I was not clear.£100 seems quite low amount for a hotel in the area or surrounding area of Westminster.So claiming the £100 they would have to make up the difference with the actual hotel costs with part of their attendance allowance which is £361.Unless I have read it incorrectly this does seem to discriminate against those that have to travel quite far.Of course £361 plus other benefits including travel is still very high compared to average wages.https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/members-allowances/house-of-lords/holallowances/explanatory-notes/202425/

Ed Robinson ● 74d

After all the expenses fiddles in parliament do you really think they would limit any claim and use their attendance allowance for overnight when they can claim £100. Somehow I doubt that very much.

Andy Pike ● 74d

"For the 2022-23 financial year the costs of the House of Lords excluding estates and works expenditure and non-cash items was £104,670,000. Of this amount the costs directly relating to the Members Finance Scheme (including allowances and travel expenses) totalled £21,110,000. As at 31 March 2023 there were 776 members eligible to attend the House."https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/HL10170/house-of-lords-costsThe overnight expense is only £100 for those outside Greater London. If you are coming a considerable distance & time then it is likely that the daily allowance will be used towards the overnight accommodation I would have thought.

Ed Robinson ● 74d

Correction b4 Richard pounced.100x 40 x £361 = £1.4M plus food and travel and some o ernight accommodation perhaps brings it up another 300k So about £1.7mNot an insignificant amount

Andy Pike ● 75d

Not sure my calculation is that redundant. If ( Taking Richard's figures) life peers attend 47% of the time.40  new peers times say 150 days ( 47%) times £361 equals £2.1 m add to that subsidised food travel and some overnight expenses the £2 - 3 million looks pretty spindly.

Andy Pike ● 75d

'I'd add that it wasn't just a missed opportunity to get rid of the bishops but to reform it properly by making the upper house wholly elected'.Before time is spent deciding who should sit in the HoL surely its purpose, modus operandi and relationship with the democratically elected HoC should be defined.

John Hawkes ● 75d

The average physical attendance for the HoL 2019-2024 shows us as much as someone turning up for a school register during the day.It doesn't measure the amount of work done whilst attending nor the amount of work & preparation when not attending. It doesn't show us that they got registered and bunked off for example.Allowances £362 are given for turning up - could this be a reason why the 20-30 age attendance is so high??A lower rate of £180 can be claimed for virtual attendance, virtual meeting etc.To call for reform of the house and base it on average attendance seems rather outdated - especially considering, unless I have it wrong, the overnight expenses are hardly generous.We should be looking at what the HoL does well and looking at what we need going forward.That means a UK second chamber that serves the whole of the UK equally as well not just those near London.

Ed Robinson ● 76d

I'd add that it wasn't just a missed opportunity to get rid of the bishops but to reform it properly by making the upper house wholly elected. The whole thing iscastly overblown, with over 800 members, many of whom don't attend at all (rendering Andy's calculation somewhst redundant).According to the House of Lords Library, attendances by type of peer are as follows:Bishops: 14%Hereditary peers: 49%Life peers: 47%Life peers (judicial): 12%.If not even half of the life peers can be bothered to turn up, it does rather suggest it really does need to be wholly transformed into something a bit more useful and effective.

Richard Carter ● 76d

Also a film, play & TV series.It's Labour's turn again - that's how the system works.If people are not happy with the system then I suggest not voting for or supporting the main parties.

Ed Robinson ● 76d

Andy, there is a bill currently going through parliament to abolish the remaining hereditary peers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rg98rl9p2o.ampI suppose the one thing that could block it is, er, hereditary peers? Possibly with the help of Conservative peers?Personally I think it was a missed opportunity not to get rid of the bishops as well.

Michael Ixer ● 76d

They've been talking about getting rid of hereditary peers since I was a boy, no sign it's actually happening yet.Why not wait till they have done that b4 bringing in their own stooges?

Andy Pike ● 76d

"Can anyone explain the choice of creating 30 odd new members of the House of Lords at an annual cost of between £2-3 million a year?""For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (KJV Matthew 13:12)This is the way.

David Ainsworth ● 76d

But they are getting rid of the hereditary stooges, that will save some cash. Should ditch the bishops too.

Michael Brigo ● 76d

Perhaps their fed up with who they are sleeping with. Need more keys to throw on the table.

Barbara Stevens ● 76d