EU Referendum

Showing posts with label House of Commons. Show all posts

Time to leave Waziristan, at least temporarily (and yes, since you ask, I do know where it is). Here are a few links of interest.

The House of Lords has published a report on Codecision and national parliamentary scrutiny and full of interesting things it is, too. Before I write about it in detail I wish to call attention to a couple of extremely useful if bewildering flow-charts. The first shows the process of Codecision (between the Council and the European Parliament). That is, let us not forget, the process whereby legislation that is legally binding for this country is agreed on.

The second shows the complications of trying to get information to conduct a scrutiny of the process. Scrutiny is not legislation; all it does, if the procedure is properly adhered to, which it very rarely is, is to turn Parliament into another lobbying group. They are both worth close study.

In the meantime, the news is that members of the Toy Parliament will be losing their automatic right to a photographic pass in the Westminster Parliament, the institution they have done so much damage to. That is not why they are losing that right; the reason is that nobody had told Harriet Harman and her chums that you cannot take passes away from one group of MEPs unless you do it to all. Developments on this score should be interesting.

Winterton[i-Winterton]The boss will do a far better and more measured piece about the news that both Wintertons are to step down at the next election. He knows them, especially Ann, far better than I do.

However, I want to point to the reactions to this piece of information. With some exceptions they have all been gloating. What people recall is past nefarious experience with expenses, though this time round, both Wintertons are high up in the list of "cheapest MPs".

What very few people seem to have noted is that both Wintertons are in the Better Off Out group and have been since its inception but then, I suppose, that is not something to be proud of, as far as most Tories are concerned; too much like rocking the boat.

What even fewer people have noticed is Ann Winterton's dogged campaign of questions about defence and procurement that has frequently had HMG and MoD on the back foot and has produced a good deal of information that those institutions would have preferred not to produce. As against that personal failings (oh yes, I remember those jokes!) ought to be a minor detail.

Which does make one wonder what do all those people who insist on commenting about political events really think MPs should be doing.

COMMENT THREAD

First it was Conservative MP Peter Bone, who informed the organization that he is a supporter but does not want to be a member. His name, therefore, did not appear in the list we put up before.

Now comes news of another supporter-but-not-member. This time it is a member of the Upper House, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, formerly the UUP MP Kenneth Maginnis.

All we are doing is recording these events. We couldn't possibly comment.

Better+off[i-Better+off]In the wake of that BBC poll that showed 55 per cent of this country's population would like to see us out of the European Union and in the midst of a huge financial crisis (made far worse by our own government as well as the EU, to be absolutely fair) Better Off Out is being relaunched as a cross-party group in both Houses.

The website gives the full press release that had, actually, been postponed till today, as well as some other information about the group. The aim is to co-ordinate a parliamentary campaign of questions, both oral and written and, whenever possible, debates, thus raising political and public awareness of the EU and its dire influence on this country.

Needless to say, this blog stands with the group and is ready to assist its work in every way possible. Come to think of it, we have been doing that for the last five years, anyway.

The group is chaired by Lord Vinson and the administrative work will be done (D. V.) from the office of Philip Davies MP. Here is the list of members:

Douglas Carswell MP, Baroness Cox, Philip Davies MP, Nigel Dodds MP, Jeffrey Donaldson MP, Philip Hollobone MP, Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE, The Earl of Liverpool, William McCrea MP, Dr. Ian Paisley MP, Lord Maginnis of Drunglass, Lord Mancroft, Austin Mitchell MP, Lord Monson, Lord Moran KCMG, Lord Palmer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Quinton FBA, Iris Robinson MP, Peter Robinson MP, The Earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford DL, David Simpson MP, Dr. Bob Spink MP, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Swinfen, The Rt. Hon. The Lord Tebbit, Lord Tombs, Lord Vinson LVO DL (Chairman), Lord Willoughby de Broke, Sammy Wilson MP, Ann Winterton MP, Sir Nicholas Winterton MP

Some of the names are well known in the fight, some not so much. Unsurprisingly, there are more peers than MPs. Even less surprisingly, among the MPs the Democratic Unionists predominate. So far as I can make out, there is one Labour MP, Austin Mitchell and five Conservatives: Douglas Carswell, Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone, Ann Winterton and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Whatever happened to the likes of John Redwood, he who must not be criticized?

COMMENT THREAD

Well, we all know whose fault it is that the media is gleefully publishing details of ... ahem ... inappropriate expenses listed by our underworked representatives:

A newspaper has claimed it had been offered computer discs containing full details of MPs' expenses claims for the last five years for £300,000.

The Times said it was offered the politically-sensitive material by a businessman with a company based in the City of London and similar offers were made to other papers.

The report came as Commons officials began a hunt for a mole believed to have leaked details of invoices submitted by MPs to support their claims for allowances of up to £23,000 a year on their second homes.

Shocking. Not like MPs using their position to extract confidential information from civil servants in order, not to raise it in the House, but publish it in the media.

COMMENT THREAD

eric_pickles_35598t[i-eric_pickles_35598t]There is a rather confused story about of the party hosted by genial Tory Party Chairman Eric Pickles (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Peter Simple's character, 25-stone Alderman Foodbotham) getting a tad out of hand.

Two guests started an altercation, the police intervened, the officer was struck and CS gas was used on the two altercators, one of whom has been arrested.

CS gas seems a little excessive for what was clearly a drunken brawl of the kind the police elsewhere have to deal with routinely, as is all this talk about breaching security. The two men involved may not have had passes but they were clearly guests of the aforementioned Alderman Foodbotham Chairman Pickles.

The BBC thinks that the person arrested may have been a journalist. Letting journalists into the House of Commons may well constitute breach of security. The Speaker should look into it.

I understand Tim Montgomerie of ConHome was there at the party. He will most probably blog about it tomorrow.

UPDATE: Well, I was half-right. Tim mentions the party and its unusual conclusion but most of the posting is about the Mini-Messiah, a.k.a. Daniel Hannan MEP and the need to provide him with prime speaking slot during the Conference. Depends whether the Conservative leadership want to destroy Mr Hannan's credibility. If they do, they should certainly give him that prime slot.

COMMENT THREAD

John_Bright[i-John_Bright]It is pertinent to ask what position the British parliament, the glory of the British (and English) system occupies in the grand vision of EU legislation. After all, we are told by numerous clowns politicians of different parties that we should vote for them and they will do such things though, naturally, they know not what they are. Nevertheless, the terror of the earth they shall be.

So should we pay any attention to what these bozos political wannabes tell us? Well, curiously enough an answer was found as I was reading the HoL European Union Committee Report that I have mentioned earlier, "Initiation of EU Legislation".

In the section on national parliaments Paragraph 126 says:

126. Do those views of national parliaments have much influence over the development of legislative proposals? Sir Kim Darroch said that reports of the House of Lords, for example, were taken into account by the Government in formulating and developing policy, and thus might indirectly influence the Commission. His colleague, Paul Heardman (Head of European Parliament Section, UKRep), told us that the Reports were well regarded in the European Parliament. (QQ 299, 300) As one voice among many seeking to influence legislation, the direct influence of a national parliament should not be exaggerated, but it may be able to influence the Commission to a degree. The Minister advised that influence on the initiation of legislation would be greater if focussed on multi-annual programmes. (Q 468)

[I have left the references to the specific questions there, in case some of our readers want to follow them up in the document.]

In a couple of previous paragraphs (116 – 119) we had already been told about HMG’s efforts to influence legislation, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

What it adds up to is very clear and I, for one, should like to hear some explanation of how they are going to deal with it from some of our politicos and political wannabes. Our Parliament and our elected government have become lobbying organizations that have to compete in the seat of power with others of that ilk. These might be other national parliaments or they might be business representatives, such as the Freight Transport Association that also gave evidence to the Committee, or an NGO, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature. The latter might even be better off as it receives EU subsidies to the tune of €600,000 a year but no, that does not affect their lobbying work at all, said the piglets as they took to the skies.

I suppose we can at least say that we elect the House of Commons to lobby at the seat of power on our behalf whereas the others merely appoint themselves. But it is not much consolation when one thinks of such people as John Hampden, John Bright [pictured above] or Richard Cobden.

David_Davis[i-David_Davis]My colleague has already posted on the great excitement in British politics – the resignation of an MP apparently for reasons of principle. I should like to discuss the wider implications of this event, while fully admitting that I am not privy to David Davis’s thinking or planning. It would appear that even his close colleague and former chef du cabinet, Iain Dale, was taken somewhat by surprise.

Mr Dale describes the resigning MP's attitude thus:

During my six months working for DD in 2005 Tony Blair's 90 day detention proposals I saw first hand how passionately he feels about this issue. It's not a matter of political conviction, it's almost as if it is in his DNA. He genuinely thinks that extending pre charge detention to 42 days will make the country less safe. It will give the terrorists a propaganda victory.

Up until the weekend he believed the 42 day proposal would be defeated. He hadn't reckoned on the duplicity of the DUP or the fact that so many Labour MPs would be bought off by offers of goodies for their constituency or the chairmanship of this or that committee.

Of course, one must ask that if Mr Davis felt that strongly about 90 days and, indeed, 42 days, then why did he not feel strongly about 28 days. Perhaps, he did and thought, with little justification, that the government would stop there. If there is one thing one knows about any government is that they never stop unless they are forced to.

They will not stop at 42 days either as they find that the police can do no more in 42 days than it could in 28, unless it is a question of investigating a TV programme for "Islamophobic content", in other words, evidence that some mosques peddle incendiary material.

The reaction has been confusing, to put it mildly, because it is so long since any politician has resigned on any matter except being caught with hand in the till. (In fact, when I saw the Evening Standard headline I assumed the story was about Caroline Spelman and her nanny, thus to be ignored.)

The Times and the Daily Telegraph is spinning away, doing the Labour government's work. Apparently, this will be terrible for the Conservative Party, because dear old Gordon is on the ropes and this will give him breathing space with the Tories tearing each other apart. Interesting. It seems that neither newspaper nor its journalists can envisage a different scenario and that is the electorate being rather impressed by a politician who, at least, appears to be making a principled stand.

According to Conservative Home (whose own stance is diametrically opposite to Davis's), a swiftly conducted grass roots poll shows that 65 percent of Conservative members are inspired by Davis's stand. Unlike most newspapers, the editor of the blog, one Tim Montgomerie, has also published the questions and the figures for individual responses.

That is completely different from the newspapers flagging up the YouGov poll that 69 percent of those asked (we do not quite know what) support the 42 day pre-charge detention. As we have mentioned before, it is unlikely that such matters as Habeas Corpus were mentioned in the poll. Nor would there have been any reference to the West Midlands police or to alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Cat and Mouse Act, anyone? Perhaps not.

Undoubtedly, it is a little early to decide what the effect of David Davis's resignation might be but one or two preliminary points might be made. One is that he is absolutely right in his view that conservatism consists of defending ancient liberties and our judicial system. Would that he were as strong on defending them from the various European Treaties. There seems to be something of a blind spot there or will Mr Davis now emerge as the spokesman for the true British constitution?

Secondly, he is also right in that stupid reactions to terrorist threats are own goals. One of the professed aims of the Russian terrorists of the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was to provoke savage reprisals from the government, thus turning much of the educated society into opponents of the state. Largely they succeeded with lamentable results for the country as a whole.

This is not to say that we must not fight this war with all sensible methods at our disposal. The war, as we have pointed out on this blog on occasions too numerous to mention is one of propaganda as well as of bullets. What exactly has been done about creating or reviving a British narrative that gave many Muslims an honoured place?

Anyone who would like to disagree with that sentiment should visit a British War Cemetery and have a look at the many gravestones that are marked with a sickle. These are the gravestones of His Majesty's Muslim subjects voluntarily coming to the aid of the mother country.

We have asked some of the other questions before. Here is another one. Just exactly how determined are we to fight this war if we demand that the United States return Gitmo prisoners, even if they have no particular right to be in this country, drop all outstanding charges against them and fund them from Legal Aid to sue the American government? Why is it that the only way of fighting this war is to abolish individual rights, ancient liberties and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Edmund+Burke[i-Edmund+Burke]Now we come to the really interesting question about David Davis’s behaviour and that has to do with the duty of an MP. Inevitably, the government is getting all worked up about Davis’s contempt for the British people and the British parliament. That “contempt” always appears when something is suggested (such as a referendum on the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty) that the powers that be do not like.

Then there is the question of that opinion poll. Davis should not, according to this, express his views because the majority according to an opinion poll is in favour of this ludicrous idea. The same majority will turn round at the first sign of somebody being kept in for all the wrong reasons. Presumably, at that point all those who support the 42 day detention must whip round into the other camp because some opinion poll says that the majority is against it.

In other words, we are back to the problem discussed by the great Edmund Burke, among others: is it an MP's job to reflect what his constituents say, regardless of what he believes is right and regardless of the fact that the constituents may change their views from day to day or is it the MP's task to speak and vote according to his conscience, at least on major issues.

Discuss.

Peter Lilley MP seems to have hit on a popular policy. Well, popular with the electorate though not, one suspects, with his colleagues.

As the Daily Telegraph reported it (well, so did the Daily Mail but I find that one even more difficult), Mr Lilley has called for a cut in MPs' salaries for the reason we have been advocating on this blog for some time (here, here and here among others): they no longer perform the function that is supposed to be theirs.

What Mr Lilley did on Tuesday was to introduce a Private Member's Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule, entitled Members of Parliament (Pay and Responsibilities). In summary, its purpose is

to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

The session on Tuesday was the First Reading, which is little more than a formality. The Second Reading is scheduled for October 17, not long before Parliament's prorogation. Clearly, the Bill is going nowhere fast but it is useful to have the sentiments on record.

Introducing the Bill, Mr Lilley began his speech thus:

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities. If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs’ pay is assessed.

Quite so. As we have pointed out before. See above and passim.

Mr Lilley then proceeds to make various sensible calculations about how much power has already been transferred to the European Union and how much more is likely to go the same way with the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty.

Sadly, the muddled and misleading speech made in response by the completely unmemorable Labour MP for York, Hugh Bayley, goes a long way towards explaining why the public does not trust MPs or other politicians. They have no knowledge or understanding of political reality or of the way they are viewed by the electorate.

It would appear from some comments, on this and other forums (in this case the forum is an English word and has an English plural), that my warnings have not been heeded. The Second Reading in the House of Commons is not the end or even the beginning of the end. In any case, there was never the slightest doubt that it will be voted through. There never is the slightest doubt about the Second Reading of a Government Bill. Could we have less hysteria and more attention paid, please?

The fun starts today with the first day of the Committee of the whole House. As we pointed out yesterday, the "usual channels" have agreed to go through the various stages at a gallop.

I cut my teeth (eurosceptically speaking) on the Maastricht debates and campaigns, which is why I do not find it in me to go into terminal decline or have fainting fits over this treaty. That was a colossal battle and the sight of a government slowly losing its lifeblood over the prolonged battle was extraordinary. I guess you had to be there.

This will not be the same. Mr Brown's majority is bigger than Mr Major's was and the Labour Party is not going to throw up significant numbers of rebels, unlike the Conservative Party then. This, I believe, we also predicted. Those 150 rebels would melt away like morning mist, we said.

On the other hand, some people might find some of the debates entertaining and instructive.

The Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, whose purpose is to implement the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty in British legislation, will be taking place this afternoon.

Timing is a little hard to judge. Defence Questions, going on at the moment,will last till about 3 but it seems that there will be at least two statements. So the debate might not start till about 5.

As far as anybody knows they will vote around 10 both on the Amendment and the Substantive Motion. Normally, there has to be a certain amount of time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage but there is a rumour going round that an agreement between the various party leaders (or, as it is usually known, "the usual channels") that the Committee of the Whole House will start its work tomorrow.

In the meantime, Bob Spink's EDM that demanded the publication of a detailed analysis of the treaty together with the protocols and declarations and an explanation of how they might affect the British constitutional structure as it exists and future legislation has been comprehensively ignored. Why am I not surprised?

Charles+I_Lenthall[i-Charles+I_Lenthall]Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph gave us the details of the money MPs receive now and what is being recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).

In addition to earning £60,675 a year, MPs receive on average an additional £135,850, including more than £20,000 for living costs.

A report from the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) found that MPs' pay was "at least on a par" with their European counterparts and found that Mr Brown was one of the best-paid leaders in the western world.

However, it said that MPs' pay had slipped behind comparable positions in the public and private sectors and that generous salary increases were now necessary.

Under the recommendations, MPs' allowances should also be increased by almost £10,000 a year to employ additional staff.

The proposal could cost the taxpayer an extra £2.63 million a year once the National Insurance contributions, travel and other subsistence for MPs' staff were taken into account.

The review also said that MPs should be subject to spot checks on expense claims from the National Audit Office.

It recommended a cut from £250 to £50 in the amount MPs could claim in expenses each month without producing receipts.

It also concluded that it was unfair for taxpayers to meet the rising costs of the MPs' pension scheme, one of the most generous in the world, and urged MPs to pay some of the higher costs in future.

Why do I get this very strange feeling that the points about those expenses and pensions will not find their way into the motion that will be voted on later this month?

For once, Prime Minister Brown seems to have a clearer idea about the popularity of such greed. He is suggesting that the increase should be 1.9 per cent rather that 2.56 per cent. But MPs on all sides, intoxicated by that nonsense about “comparable positions in the public and private sectors” are determined to fight for a bigger share of the taxpayers’ money.

What exactly are those comparable positions? In what other position do people vote for their own pay increase and generous pensions, not to mention extremely generous allowances and all at the taxpayers’ expense with no need to report to shareholders for instance? Another £10,000 for researchers? Well, that will keep the youngest school leaver in the family in pocket money while he or she decides where they want to travel to.

In what other position can the highly paid denizen get away with doing quite so little of the work he or she is supposed to do? We shall see how many of those poor underpaid, overworked creatures take part in the Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill and how many will vote for the Referendum Amendment.

A quick look at comments on the Telegraph site would tell our hapless politicos exactly how people feel about them and their ability to bury their snouts in the public trough even deeper. Sadly, there are few comments about the fact that having given away seventy or eighty per cent of their jobs to the EU, MPs should really be laid off. That is what would happen in “comparable positions” in the private sector, though not, as it happens in the public.

It seems that teachers and police officers, whose pay rise this time round is smaller, are threatening to go on strike. What difference a police strike will make to any of us is hard to see. Teachers on strike are a wretched nuisance for parents who will have to make provisions for their children that they had not expected to have to worry about. It will make zilch difference to their education.

Could MPs perhaps go on strike? Would we notice? And if we did, would we care? I can hear the answers to all those questions. There is one aspect to all this that fills me with some despair. It is very hard to argue that we want to win back the right to be governed by the people we elect when we see who those people are. And don’t bother to tell me that we can throw them out if we want to. Have you looked at Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition recently?

Nor am I impressed by arguments that better money will bring better people into politics. The money at present is very good and it does not bring good people into politics. Before my colleague starts chewing the carpet, I’d better let him have Owen Paterson and the Lady Winterton as exceptions. As for me, I shall stick to the unsalaried House of Lords.

Talking of MPs not doing what they are supposed to be, I have a bone to pick with Toryboy Blog. Their highly informative account of yesterday’s PMQs rightly mentions the generally appalling behaviour of the Speaker, who openly favours the Labour benches and managed not to call the new leader of the Lib-Dims when he should have done. Actually, he might not have known who the chap with the elegant haircut might have been.

The blog also mentions the following:

CentreRight.com made a little history, too: DOUGLAS CARSWELL BECAME THE FIRST MP TO LIVE-BLOG PMQs DIRECT FROM THE CHAMBER!

Terrific. This is what one likes to hear. Those highly paid MPs sitting there in the Chamber, blogging. That shows real respect for Parliament and its workings.

Time was when no electronic gadgets were allowed in the Chamber and MPs had to pretend at least that they were paying attention to what was going on. What with a useless Speaker (one wonders how he would have behaved when Charles I burst into the Chamber) and the need for MPs to be on constant call via their pagers, rules have been relaxed. Mr Carswell, normally an MP I rather admire for his honesty on matters European, seems to think that this relaxation means he can make a complete mockery of proceedings.

Is this his way of saying that it really does not matter what happens in the House of Commons any more or his way of using his position for as much self-publicity as he can manage at no matter what expense? Answers on a postcard, please.

House_of_Commons01[i-House_of_Commons01]It is easy to lose track of the fact that we do, in fact, have an elected House of Commons in this country, except when they start agitating for inflation-busting pay rises for themselves (without ever mentioning their very handsome expenses and extremely easy working conditions). All the same, some attention should be paid to the poor dears or they will feel unloved and unwanted.

The first day of the Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill will be January 21. At this stage it is not clear how many days will allocated. Unlike the House of Lords, the HoC does divide, that is, it votes at the Second Reading as well. The Bill itself is not very long as it merely implements the Constitional, Reform, Lisbon Treaty into British legislation but there will be various amendments during the Committee and Report stages.

For those who do not know the system, let me explain. No matter what the media will say, the Second Reading in the Commons is not the end of the process and not even the beginning of the end. After that there will be several days of Committee debates and, one imagines, this will go to the Committee of the whole House; then there will be several days of Report stage; then Third Reading. Only then will it go to the House of Lords. There are certain rules about the number of days that must elapse between the various stages.

I have no doubt that the government would like to push this through as fast as possible, as England Expects says on the basis of some information or other. I don't think the Bill will get to the House of Lords till after Easter. We shall see.

In the meantime, Bob Spink MP, chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, and erstwhile chairman of Pro-Referendum Rally, is putting down the following Early Day Motion:

This House notes that the second reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill is set down for one week from this EDM, on 21st January 2008, and therefore asks the Government to immediately publish the short and long titles of the Bill, and to set out an analysis of full text of the Treaty, including its protocols, declarations and similar material; and to immediately publish a note of any implications of the Treaty which are additional to the existing provisions of Community or Union Treaties currently in force, or which place further obligations on the Crown, Courts and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and to set out the nature and scope of any amendments that are allowable to the Bill during its passage through parliament and to set out if the currently stated objective of the European Union of "ever closer union" will be mentioned in the either the Bill or the Treaty in any way whatsoever; and whether there will be any change, as a result of the Treaty, to the provisions of European Communities Act 1972 Clause 2 : 1 relating to the powers of Crown or Parliament.

Early Day Motions are never debated and, one might think that it is all a waste of time. But it is worth having all this down in Hansard, even if Dr Spink does seem to split infinitives on an industrial scale.

House_of_Commons01[i-House_of_Commons01]In December last year I wrote an open letter to the Members of the House of Commons as there was news that they were whining about how little they were paid (that's over £60,000 plus very generous expenses, not to mention the possibility of putting members of their own family on the salary list).

Another year, another pay demand by our MPs. The story and the accompanying storm broke yesterday when we found out that our so-called legislators (I'll come to that in a minute) are demanding a ten per cent pay rise, well above inflation level. I don't suppose that means a commensurate ten per cent cut in the average allowance of £134,000. No, I thought not.

After all, as the Mail on Sunday put it:

One reason for the big claim is that many Labour MPs fear they will lose their seats at the next Election - and want to boost their Commons pension rights before it is too late.

Terrific. All at our expense, too, gentle reader.

Today there are lots of stories such as this one about Gordon Brown opposing the proposals and calling MPs selfish. Most of us can think of other, less pleasant descriptions but that will do to start with.

There is a good deal of predictable whining about the police not getting the pay rise they want. As it happens, that argument leaves me cold. As the think-tank Reform explained:

Discussion over this year's police pay settlement should take into account the fact that, over the last twelve years, police pay has risen at twice the rate of inflation and by more than the average of the public sector and the private sector pay increases.

One cannot possibly argue that productivity has gone up with the same fantastic leap. Indeed, that is true about the public sector in general - money has been poured in, salaries have gone up, productivity stayed the same.

Back to MPs, however.

Inevitably, the blogosphere is also buzzing. Iain Dale, has come out on the MPs' side, as he usually does, arguing that

Surely we should pay our MPs at a level where few would actually be put off standing for Parliament. I'd like Parliament to be representative of a number of professions, but few people from those professions would think about standing for Parliament because they would have to take a pay drop. Relatively junior managers in industry or the public sector now command salaries in excess of what MPs earn. What message does it send out that we are happy to pay MPs the same as the Deputy Public Affairs Manager of an NHS Trust?

On the whole, few of those who commented on the blog agreed with Iain (Peter Luff MP being one of those who did in a particularly whinging comment), pointing out that junior managers in the private sector do not earn that much, cannot command those expenses and cannot employ members of their family. If the Deputy Public Affairs Manager of an NHS Trust is on the same salary (plus expenses?) then he/she is seriously overpaid.

Tim Worstall, on the other hand, is demanding that MPs' salaries should be cut or reduced to zero on the grounds of supply and demand. There are very many people who want to be MPs and there will be even if they do not get the salaries they do.

I am not sure I accept Tim's argument entirely, though it makes more sense than Iain's about paying MPs as much as they could get in the private sector. Let's face it, most of them are MPs because they could not get much more than their train fares in the private sector. We are not talking potential captains of industry, hard-working GPs or anything of the kind. We are talking about people who have gone from one political position to another with an odd interlude of outside employment where they displayed no ability whatsoever.

There are many reasons why people who can do other things would not want to be MPs and they do not have much to do with the money. Maybe the company one has to keep.

Besides, why would we want to skim talented people off the wealth-creating private sector and send them into the parasitical public one?

It is curious that those parallels with the private sector concentrate, however erroneously, only on the pay, never on productivity or other problems like going out of business because of high taxes and an impossible regulatory structure.

What would a firm in the private sector do if it found that seventy to eighty per cent of its work has gone somewhere else? It would institute major cutbacks and many people would be laid off. Yet with that proportion of our legislation coming from Brussels and MPs not being able to reject it and not even reading it most of the time, we have no cutbacks; nobody is laid off; and a ten percent salary rise is demanded. I bet when that is debated, we shall have the House full to the rafters, unlike the time there is a debate on, say, the fishing industry and its destruction.

A year ago I wrote:

What is it you do, ladies and gentlemen that would justify yet another pay rise? Do you legislate? Well, not in the eighty percent of the legislation that comes, one way or another from the European Union and is passed on the nod because you do not have the right to reject or amend it. Let's face it, you do not even bother to read most of it. There is a lot of material there, I agree, but it is you and your equally greedy predecessors, who made sure of this state of affairs.

Let us not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, that a good deal of that legislation does not even pass through Parliament. It arrives in the shape of EU Regulations, which are directly applicable and are put into place by Statutory Instruments, which you know nothing about, or regulations created by quangos such as the Food Standards Agency.

What of the remaining twenty per cent of the legislation? Do you live up to the expectations of the people, whom you are supposed to represent? Do you read the legislative proposals or Green Papers or Bills? Do you realize how badly drafted many of the last are? It would appear not, as those badly drafted Bills wing their way through the House of Commons and it is only when the (unpaid) Members of the House of Lords start scrutinizing them, line by line, clause by clause (something you ought to do, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons) that the full shoddiness or horror becomes clear.

It is not unknown for the Government to have to rush scores, even hundreds of amendments at a late stage, say Report, in the House of Lords, having not realized before what a mess the particular piece of legislation was. It is many years since the House of Commons has made any effort to scrutinize legislation with any attention. GPs who carried out their duties the way you do, ladies and gentlemen, would be struck of the Register of Medical Practitioners.

And a good deal more. I stand by every word of it. Cut their salaries in accordance with the work they have voluntarily abandoned.