No one disputes the need to cut parliamentary costs. But inscribing acts on paper instead of calfskin will save little,and undermine the authority of UK legislationThere is a natural tendency when looking for savings to resolve upon something that is noticeable but unimportant – the decision by the House of Lords to abandon vellum is a case in point. There is clearly still a need for austerity – the budget deficit may exceed the forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility of £73.5bn – and those who support the aim of fiscal balance cannot object to the cuts essential to achieve it. Savings need to be made and it could be argued that small incremental ones are the best way to achieve balance without mighty pain. Unfortunately, they accomplish not, or in the end,work.
Using paper instead of vellum will apparently save £80000 a year. In comparison the total costs for the Lords was a little over £94m for 2014–15. This makes vellum 0.084% of the total, so that to cut the budget by 5%, or more than 60 similar savings would be needed. It distracts from the driving force behind this outlay,which is the ever-increasing number of peers. Last year £20.1m went on their expenses, in each individual case probably justified but cumulatively too tall. Making a tiny but tall-profile cut diverts attention from this continuing problem – the solution to which is in the government’s rather than the House of Lords’ hands.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com