Flood Plains
I don't doubt that the terrible floods which have engulfed large parts of south west England are due to the weather - and not the Environment Agency or lack of foresight from various politicians.
But one thing the whole episode has thrown up is the fact that the beleaguered Chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith, is yet another politician who on leaving the House of Commons is 'elevated' to the House of Lords and then found a nice little sinecure at the head of a government quango.
In this case the government quango (Environment Agency) pays a salary of £110,000 a year for what will almost certainly be a part-time role.
On top of which Chris Smith will also be able to draw on his remuneration from the House of Lords which is a tax free daily allowance of £300 (plus generous expenses) along with, potentially, a generous pension based on his years as an MP and a Minister in the last Labour Government.
Now Chris Smith has more than his fair share of troubles at the moment with so many houses under water at the moment and no matter that the weather is the real cause of the problem - the fact is that people want someone to blame and, if possible, that person's head on a stick.
How much better would it be if people in Chris Smith's shoes didn't look as if they were being handed a nice little earner in their retirement years - that they were offering to do this kind of work because they believe in giving something back after years of living so well out of the public purse.
See post below dated 21 July 2009 - Lording It Up!
Waste of Public Money (12 May 2013)
I heard a news item on the radio the other day - which revolved around a report from the Taxpayers Alliance criticising the high salary levels - in local councils across the UK.
Interestingly, Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council came in for particular criticism - and some academic was wheeled out by Good Morning Scotland (GMS) to explain that it wasn't really all as bad as it sounded.
Because the big payments involved - in one case over £500,000 - often included early retirement payments and that the Taxpayers Alliance report did not reflect the fact that the paybill was reducing overall.
Now the paybill may be falling, but that ignores the key point - that all these senior managers are walking out the door with incredible retirement packages, often with another discretionary boost from public funds - only to resume their working careers in some other part of the public service or as a consutant cum contractor.
In other words, many of these individuals don't retire - they just go through a crazy revolving door which allows them to take up other publicly funded work - often in the same area of employment they've just left.
The fact that these arrangements apply only to people in senior positions ought to be the give away - that it's a disgraceful way to waste public money.
Radical Idea (24 March 2013)
I had a radical idea the other day.
I was reflecting on the huge numbers of senior officials - from local Councils, the NHS, the BBC - who retire early on big tax free lump sums and very generous pensions.
Only to come back through a 'revolving door' as they enter the workforce again - in a different but often similar kind of job.
Now I've nothing folks who retire early - especially those who are supposedly 'burnt out' and who can't go on - because they've done their stint and have had enough of the world of work.
Though you would have to be daft not to notice that it's almost always the most senior and highly paid staff who benefit from these generous early release schemes - which then result in a big (taxpayer funded) boost to their pensions.
But my point is ithat f they've retired early, then why are such people they allowed to re-enter the workforce again - in any capacity?
To my mind this practice should be stopped - because it strikes me as those at the top having their cake and eating it at the same time.
So as a way of ensuring that public money is spent efficiently, wisely - and on the purpose for which it is intended - my idea is that once an employee leaves a publicly funded job then the the party's over - for good.
No more revolving doors or coming back in a slighlty different capacity - or dressed up in different clothes - as an independent contractor, for example.
If someone wants to leave and access their public pension, then fair enough - let them go.
But they should not be allowed to benefit from public sector money again - in any capacity because they've had a very good innings, at public expense - and no one is forcing them out the door.
Now far as I can see this would be very fair and maximise employment opportunities - by making sure that people could not effectively be retired early from one job - while being paid to do another.
Voluntary work wouldn't be excluded - of course.
Giving Back (9 June 2013)
The Labour peer and former government minister - Jack Cunningham - has been suspended from the party, quite rightly, following the sting operation by The Sunday Times.
In which Jack and two other 'noble' lords were caught on camera while trying to negotiate lucrative deals - for carrying out lobbying work in the House of Lords.
Jack has since denied doing anything wrong - as have his two colleagues - but any sensible person who has watched the interviews would conclude that the peers were out to shove their noses into the trough - which is sad.
Because Jack is retired on a very generous, public funded pension - which is probably based on his final salary as a former government minister.
So he will have walked away from the House of Commons with a huge tax free lump sum - worth three times his final salary plus an annual pension worth many tens of of thousands of pounds a year.
I imagine Jack's pension is probably two thirds of his final salary which would have been over £100,000 a year - in which case a reasonable guess would be a £60,000 a year pension plus a tax free lump sum of £300,000.
And that comes after many years of working as a MP earning a decent salary - as well as generous expenses of course.
On top of all that Jack is able to claim his daily House of Lords attendance allowance - which is worth £300 a day (again tax free) plus expenses, of course.
Yet Jack is still not satisfied - if his Sunday Times interview is anything to go by - as he rejects an offer to work two days a month (for the bogus company) at £10,000 per month - and instead asks for £12,000 a month or £144,000 a year.
What's wrong with these people, you have to ask? - apart from being greedy pigs, obviously.
£144,000 is almost as much as the Prime Minister's salary for running the government - and yet Jack thinks he's worth that for only two days a week - when he's already on the public payroll.
So what I would do is to bring in a new rule to say that until the House of Lords is abolished - that 'noble' peers who are already in receipt of public money of some kind, e.g. a generous pension, should not be eligible to claim anything other than their expenses.
It's called giving something back to society and if the House of Lords were run along those lines - I think we'd see people like Jack Cunningham leading a stamped out the doors.
Lording It Up! (21 July 2009)
Investigative journalism is alive and well, it seems. At the weekend, the Sunday Times ran a really interesting story - this time about expenses in the House of Lords.Now it’s been known for some time that the regime in the Lords is just a lax as the one in the House of Commons – but the paper has lifted the lid off the scandal that allows their lordships to claim generous tax free allowances - just for signing in at their place of ‘work’
The ST’s insight team tracked Chris Smith (now Lord Smith of Finsbury) - a former Labour culture minister who earns £220,000 a year from two quango jobs who and claims more than £20,000 a year for attending the Lords — all within the rules.
Here’s summary of the paper’s report from Sunday 19 July 2009:
“It took Lord Smith of Finsbury exactly 10 minutes to walk in and out of the House of Lords on Wednesday evening. He went straight to the chamber and stood near the door listening to the debate for four minutes before leaving.
The quick visit meant he could claim £161.50 for attending the house that day. He had, in his own words, “clocked in” for his daily and office allowance.
The day before, he had spent three minutes in the chamber, and on Thursday less than one minute. In those three days he did not speak in the house, did not vote or ask any written questions.
On Friday Lord Tyler, a Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional reform, said there could be up to 100 peers who popped in and out of the chamber to claim allowances.
He said: “There is a great deal of frustration among the more active members of the house about the way in which the system is open to exploitation.”
Peers claim allowances by attending a select committee or entering the chamber while the house is sitting, where they must attract the attention of a clerk who ticks off their name. Many claim the maximum, which is £86.50 for day subsistence, £75 for office costs and £174 for staying overnight in London.
The Sunday Times has monitored the Lords on a number of days in the past six months. Typically between 10 to 50 peers entered the chamber for less than five minutes each day.
Our reporters saw politicians loitering next to the benches waiting to be given the nod by the clerk. Some later claimed they were working on Lords business elsewhere in the house.
We decided to monitor Smith in the Lords last week because he had been spotted nipping in and out of the chamber and he has substantial commitments outside parliament.
Smith has taken on a number of jobs since becoming a peer in 2005 and divides his time between two chairmanships: for the Environment Agency three days a week and for the Advertising Standards Authority 2 1/2 days a week.
Since November last year he has spoken in one debate, not submitted any questions and taken part in only nine out of 62 votes. However, the records show he normally appeared in the chamber on 80% of days that the house was sitting. On these days he claimed day subsistence and office costs but not accommodation, because his main home is in London.
On Tuesday, Smith spent most of his day in his Environment Agency office before leaving in his car at 6.30pm. He parked in the peers’ car park and attended a drinks reception in the House of Lords held by Thames 21, an environmental charity. After drinks, he popped into the chamber for three minutes and then immediately left the house for a dinner hosted by Natural England, an environment quango.
On Wednesday, Smith was in his Environment Agency office from lunchtime until 7.30pm when he drove to the House of Lords, popped into the chamber and drove off within 10 minutes. On Thursday, he entered the chamber for less than a minute. He later headed across the road to Portcullis House to give a speech on climate change.
This weekend Smith, who also claimed £10,000 in expenses from the Environment Agency last year, acknowledged that he had “clocked in”. However, he said he had been dealing with Lords-related correspondence on Wednesday and Thursday which would justify claiming the allowance. He said the events he attended on Tuesday and Thursday related to his position as a peer and his work for the Environment Agency, and qualified as Lords work.
Smith said: “This is the way that the allowance system operates. You register attendance in the chamber, you may well stay on to listen to or participate in debates, as I sometimes do, or you may go off to other meetings in the palace of Westminster or to work in your parliamentary office. Attendance in the chamber is not the only mark of participation.”
The rules on allowances state: “The basic principle underlying the scheme is that the entitlement to recover expenses arises only in respect of attendance at sittings of the House (in the chamber) or its committees.”
You can read more from The Sunday Times at: www.sundaytimes.co.uk
The ST’s insight team tracked Chris Smith (now Lord Smith of Finsbury) - a former Labour culture minister who earns £220,000 a year from two quango jobs who and claims more than £20,000 a year for attending the Lords — all within the rules.
Here’s summary of the paper’s report from Sunday 19 July 2009:
“It took Lord Smith of Finsbury exactly 10 minutes to walk in and out of the House of Lords on Wednesday evening. He went straight to the chamber and stood near the door listening to the debate for four minutes before leaving.
The quick visit meant he could claim £161.50 for attending the house that day. He had, in his own words, “clocked in” for his daily and office allowance.
The day before, he had spent three minutes in the chamber, and on Thursday less than one minute. In those three days he did not speak in the house, did not vote or ask any written questions.
On Friday Lord Tyler, a Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional reform, said there could be up to 100 peers who popped in and out of the chamber to claim allowances.
He said: “There is a great deal of frustration among the more active members of the house about the way in which the system is open to exploitation.”
Peers claim allowances by attending a select committee or entering the chamber while the house is sitting, where they must attract the attention of a clerk who ticks off their name. Many claim the maximum, which is £86.50 for day subsistence, £75 for office costs and £174 for staying overnight in London.
The Sunday Times has monitored the Lords on a number of days in the past six months. Typically between 10 to 50 peers entered the chamber for less than five minutes each day.
Our reporters saw politicians loitering next to the benches waiting to be given the nod by the clerk. Some later claimed they were working on Lords business elsewhere in the house.
We decided to monitor Smith in the Lords last week because he had been spotted nipping in and out of the chamber and he has substantial commitments outside parliament.
Smith has taken on a number of jobs since becoming a peer in 2005 and divides his time between two chairmanships: for the Environment Agency three days a week and for the Advertising Standards Authority 2 1/2 days a week.
Since November last year he has spoken in one debate, not submitted any questions and taken part in only nine out of 62 votes. However, the records show he normally appeared in the chamber on 80% of days that the house was sitting. On these days he claimed day subsistence and office costs but not accommodation, because his main home is in London.
On Tuesday, Smith spent most of his day in his Environment Agency office before leaving in his car at 6.30pm. He parked in the peers’ car park and attended a drinks reception in the House of Lords held by Thames 21, an environmental charity. After drinks, he popped into the chamber for three minutes and then immediately left the house for a dinner hosted by Natural England, an environment quango.
On Wednesday, Smith was in his Environment Agency office from lunchtime until 7.30pm when he drove to the House of Lords, popped into the chamber and drove off within 10 minutes. On Thursday, he entered the chamber for less than a minute. He later headed across the road to Portcullis House to give a speech on climate change.
This weekend Smith, who also claimed £10,000 in expenses from the Environment Agency last year, acknowledged that he had “clocked in”. However, he said he had been dealing with Lords-related correspondence on Wednesday and Thursday which would justify claiming the allowance. He said the events he attended on Tuesday and Thursday related to his position as a peer and his work for the Environment Agency, and qualified as Lords work.
Smith said: “This is the way that the allowance system operates. You register attendance in the chamber, you may well stay on to listen to or participate in debates, as I sometimes do, or you may go off to other meetings in the palace of Westminster or to work in your parliamentary office. Attendance in the chamber is not the only mark of participation.”
The rules on allowances state: “The basic principle underlying the scheme is that the entitlement to recover expenses arises only in respect of attendance at sittings of the House (in the chamber) or its committees.”
You can read more from The Sunday Times at: www.sundaytimes.co.uk
