Ask a Stupid Question
Scotland on Sunday yesterday published a letter from the former Presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament - Lord David Steel.
Here's what Lord Steel - a distinguished former MP and MSP had to say:
"I do hope that my favourite Sunday newspaper is not seeking to replace the News of the World. In the online forum (10 July) you claimed to have "revealed" a "plan" by me to offer a lump sum to peers who retire. Neither word is appropriate.
What you reported was a published speech in the Lords during a debate on an all-party committee proposal to introduce a statutory retirement facility for peers. At present we are appointed for life, and there are too many of us - over 800. The committee argues for a "value for money" and "modest" scheme within the House of Lords budget.
My argument was that instead of being able to claim expenses of up to £40,000 annually indefinitely (to pay for London accommodation during the week and secretarial assistance), an apparently smaller lump sum of £30,000 (which is the standard tax-free maximum redundancy pay in the wider world) would be a sufficient lump sum to encourage departure.
David Steel, via e-mail
Now I wrote about this back on 12 July 2011 - see post on that day entitled - 'Give to the Needy'.
What Lord Steel - and others like Lord John Prescott - seem to forget is that they've enjoyed a great living at public expense for many years.
And they're now retired to the House of Lords - drawing a handsome pension also paid for by the public purse.
So why do they need paid at all - why don't they just do it for expenses?
Or is that a stupid question.
Here's what Lord Steel - a distinguished former MP and MSP had to say:
"I do hope that my favourite Sunday newspaper is not seeking to replace the News of the World. In the online forum (10 July) you claimed to have "revealed" a "plan" by me to offer a lump sum to peers who retire. Neither word is appropriate.
What you reported was a published speech in the Lords during a debate on an all-party committee proposal to introduce a statutory retirement facility for peers. At present we are appointed for life, and there are too many of us - over 800. The committee argues for a "value for money" and "modest" scheme within the House of Lords budget.
My argument was that instead of being able to claim expenses of up to £40,000 annually indefinitely (to pay for London accommodation during the week and secretarial assistance), an apparently smaller lump sum of £30,000 (which is the standard tax-free maximum redundancy pay in the wider world) would be a sufficient lump sum to encourage departure.
David Steel, via e-mail
Now I wrote about this back on 12 July 2011 - see post on that day entitled - 'Give to the Needy'.
What Lord Steel - and others like Lord John Prescott - seem to forget is that they've enjoyed a great living at public expense for many years.
And they're now retired to the House of Lords - drawing a handsome pension also paid for by the public purse.
So why do they need paid at all - why don't they just do it for expenses?
Or is that a stupid question.
