Response to yet another e-petition

Below is the full text of an e-mail I received regarding an e-petition I signed.

Dear Myles Cook,

The e-petition 'Ban MPs from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest' signed by you recently reached 10,630 signatures and a response has been made to it.
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The participation of Members of Parliament in debates and votes are a matter for the rules of each House rather than for legislation. The rules are based upon the principle of transparency: the registration and the declaration of any financial interests. In the House of Commons, the Code of Conduct requires Members to fulfil the requirements of the House relating to the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to be open in drawing attention to any financial interest in proceedings of the House. The application of these rules are explained in The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, which is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcode.htm  Similar rules apply in the House of Lords. These make clear that it is for Peers themselves to declare a financial interest if a reasonable person might think that their actions could be influenced by a relevant interest. The rules and guidance are available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcond/code.pdf . In both Houses the respective Registers of Interests are publically available and updated regularly. It would not be practicable to prevent Members speaking or voting in debates on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest or which has made donations to themselves of their party. A significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations. The requirement proposed would impose a duty on all Members to ascertain whether a general legislative provision might be of financial benefit to particular operations in which they had an interest. There are questions as to how such a complex requirement could be policed effectively and what sanctions would apply. The rules of the House of Commons already prohibit paid advocacy, so Members cannot advocate measures which are for the exclusive benefit of a body from which they receive a financial benefit. In other cases, where legislation or debate affects a body from which a Member receives a financial benefit, that interest must be properly registered and declared. In relation to political donations and election expenditure, the Government is committed to further improving transparency and accountability, so as to prevent a situation where opaque and unaccountable groups spend large sums of money attempting to influence the political system. Measures to achieve this objective are included in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill which is currently before the Parliament. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/


I haven’t read the e-mail in any great detail so I will give my comments in another posting when I’ve had the time to read the e-mail and construct my response.

Another e-petition, another response

Below is the response to another of the e-petitions I signed.

Dear Myles Cook,

The e-petition 'Remove the subsidy from the House of Commons Catering and Bars' signed by you recently reached 13,598 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: Responsibility for this policy area is a matter for the House of Commons Service. The costs of catering in the House have been reduced since 2003 and in 2012/13 were a quarter less than five years before; figures are published here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/transparency-reporting-catering-services/ ). The House of Commons Service is working to further reduce these cost. The customers for the catering services include around 13,000 pass-holders (Members of both Houses, their staff, House staff, civil servants, contractors’ staff, members of the Press Gallery etc.) as well as members of the public and non pass holding visitors to Parliament. Many of the restaurants and dining room facilities, and their staff, are extensively used to cater for private events at times when they are not required by the House. Much of the net cost to the House arises because of the irregular hours and unpredictability of Parliamentary business. Food and drink prices are regularly reviewed and set at levels benchmarked against similar outlets outside the House. Decisions relating to the budget for, and charges within, the House Catering Services are matters for the House of Commons Commission, not for the Government.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Response to an e-Petition

Here's the text of an e-mail I received a short while ago about an e-petition I signed.

The e-petition 'Repeal the Welfare Reform Act 2012' signed by you recently reached 15,776 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10,000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government believes that it should be encouraging greater responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, and training and targeted support for those looking for work. The 2012 Welfare Reform Act introduced a wide range of reforms to make the benefits and tax credits system fairer and simpler by creating the right incentives to get more people into work, protecting the most vulnerable in our society, and delivering fairness to those claiming benefit and to the tax payer. The nation’s finances also need to be put on a more sustainable footing – while this means making difficult decisions on tax and spending, we believe it is possible to do this and help people lift themselves out of poverty, and stay out of poverty, through work and saving backed by the right support and encouragement. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100,000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

All they really needed to say was "We hear what you're saying but don't really give a fuck about a bunch of skivers because we're a bunch of taxpayer-funded scrounging strivers".

What they neglect to say is that their reforms are killing up to 73 people a week, causing untold suffering and financial hardship amongst the section of the community that depends on benefits for survival and throwing more people into poverty and onto the scrapheap than even Thatcher did during her reign of terror.

As one picture circulating on Facebook puts it "reform suggests improvement" and these reforms are doing nothing but harm.