Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Government’

The First Amendment and religious freedom

Aug 11, 2010 1 comment

Here is the First Amendment in full:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Commentators tend to state that religious freedom is protected by the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. For example the website 1 for All, says in its FAQ:

5. How does the First Amendment protect religious liberty?
It protects religious liberty through the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — provides for separation between church and state. The free exercise clause — “or the free exercise thereof” — means that individuals can hold whatever beliefs they wish on religion or nonreligion and to freely practice those beliefs.

While this is certainly true, it’s not the whole truth. These two clauses certainly explicitly protect religious freedom; all the other clauses, to some extent, implicitly protect religious freedom.

To further discuss this, I’ve parsed the First Amendment into its separate clauses, which I discuss separately. (Note that parsing the First Amendment is a non-trivial exercise and there is at least one other parsing that I considered – if you disagree with my parsing below, I’m most interested in hearing your version.)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

One of the two clauses explicitly protecting religious freedom.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion

One of the two clauses explicitly protecting religious freedom.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

Nowadays, when we talk about freedom of speech, we often think of freedom of political speech, but free speech is required for the practice of most religions. Free speech protects the right to preach, to pray aloud, to recite creeds and simply to state one’s religious beliefs.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press

Nowadays, when we talk about the press there is almost an implicit assumption that we are talking about the Fourth Estate, that is newspapers and other journals. The framers of the Bill of Rights certainly saw a free press as a protection against tyranny. For example, George Mason in his Master Draft of the Bill of Rights stated “the Freedom of the Press is one of the great Bulwarks of Liberty”.

However the term “press” has a wider meaning, it encompasses the printing press and also applies to any form of publishing establishment.

A free press is required for the printing of religious texts. Restriction of the press has been used to restrict the freedom of religion, and the framers of the Bill of Rights would certainly have been aware of this. For example:

In 16th century England the Tyndale Bible, the first mass produced English translation of the Bible, was banned. Tyndale was arrested by church authorities, tried for heresy, strangled and burnt at the stake.

In 1668, after writing The Sandy Foundation Shaken (a text espousing his Quaker views) William Penn was charged for publication without a license and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Nowadays, when we think about the right to assemble, we normally think of political assembly and in particular the right to protest. But we shouldn’t forget that the practice of most religions involves peaceful assembly. Religious persecution has often been carried out by breaking up religious meetings, prosecuting those involved in said meeting, or banning such meetings. For example:

In 1662 John Browne was arrested was arrested on orders of Peter Stuyvesant, Director-General of the colony of New Netherland (now New York) for allowing a Quaker meeting in his house.

In England the Conventicle Act of 1664 forbade religious assemblies of more than five people outside the Church of England.

In 1670 William Penn was arrested, accused of preaching before a gathering in the street. Penn had deliberately provoked the authorities in this way to test the validity of the then new law against assembly.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

What’s this about then? It seems almost unrelated to the other clauses.

In December 1657 by a group of citizens from the town of Flushing (now part of Queens, New York) petitioned Peter Stuyvesant, protesting against his persecution of Quakers. None of the 30 signatories of the petition were Quakers themselves. This petition became known as the
Flushing Remonstrance. Stuyvesant arrested those who presented the document to him, and forced the signatories to recant. Edward Hart, the town clerk, and Tobias Feake, sheriff of Flushing, refused to recant, and spent over a month in prison.

Nowadays we tend to think about the right to petition as a means of achieving political aims and as a means of protecting public participation in government, however petitions have historically been used to protest against religious persecution.

In summary

Every single clause of the First Amendment protects religious liberty. Removal of any of these clauses would open the door to a form of religious persecution.

Advertisements

Young Rewired State and government electricity wastage

Aug 9, 2010 Leave a comment

I was recently peripherally involved in Young Rewired State 2010. This was a week long event for young developers aged 15 to 18 and was held across the UK. The idea was simple: the young developers had five days to create an application or website based on a theme that interested them – the only proviso was that it had to use at least one government dataset.

In the Osmosoft offices we hosted a group of seven young developers: Issabell, Daniel, Harry, David, Dylan, Marcus and Sufian. Between them they produced a variety of applications:

Live London Leisure Locator, by Dylan Maryk
CycleHubs, by Daniel May
Un-Named, by Sufian Hassan and Dylan Maryk
GovSpark, by Isabell Long
Psych Survival, Rates by David Goater
UniSearch, by Sufian, David Goater, Harry Burt, Daniel May and Marcus Hughes.

The full list of projects is here.

Of these projects, the one I found most interesting was GovSpark by Isabell Long. A number of government buildings now provide downloadable files of their historical energy use. For example, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s data is here. Isabell used this data to compare the daytime and nighttime electricity usage of various government buildings. Her investigation showed that many government buildings use substantial amounts of electricity at night – a nighttime electricity consumption rate of 40% of the daytime rate is not atypical. This potentially represents a huge waste – a waste of electricity and also a waste of taxpayers money. Although there may be legitimate reasons why government buildings use so much electricity overnight, I suspect the main reason is that lighting and computers are unnecessarily left on overnight.

I was happy to see that Isabell was awarded the Most likely to antagonise the CIO Council Rewired State Award.

Suggestion for a cheaper Trident

Jul 17, 2010 1 comment

I share the opinion that Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, and General Sir Hugh Beach expressed in a letter to the Times: that Britain’s defence needs would be best served by scrapping Trident and using the monies saved to improve Britain’s conventional forces. However, I am realistic enough to accept that this is unlikely to happen in the current parliament, especially given the statement: “The Government is committed to retaining Trident and the programme will be scrutinised for value for money” (see Strategic Defence and Security Review).

First some background on Trident: the Trident Programme is the UK’s nuclear defence programme. It consists of four Vanguard class submarines each of which carries up to 16 Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. Each missile carries 3 warheads and has a range of approximately 7,500 miles (12,000km). The Trident Programme has a 30-year lifespan that is due to end in 2024 (source: BBC Trident missile factfile). The life span of the Trident D-5 missile has been extended to 2030 when it is due to be replaced by the Trident E-6 missile (source: Missilethreat).

The submarine based system was part of the cold war strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction: no nation will lauch a pre-emptive first strike against the UK because the UK will be able to launch a devastating retaliatory strike from its submarines (since at least one of the submarines is always at sea at a hidden location).

The cold war is over. The nuclear threat against the UK is no longer that of a pre-emptive first strike, so a submarine based nuclear deterrent is no longer required.

This suggests a cheaper alternative to the full Trident Programme: move the Trident missiles to land-based silos and scrap the submarines.

There are probably technical difficulties with launching a Trident missile from a land-based silo: the feasibility and cost of a land-based Trident nuclear deterrent needs to be evaluated and compared with the option of replacing the four Vanguard submarines. Both the replacement and subsequent running costs need to be compared. The question of how many land-based missiles are required, and how many warheads each missile carries needs to be addressed (I believe that under arms limitation treaties more warheads are allowed on ICBMs than SLBMs). Currently the UK has a guaranteed launch capability (provided by the one submarine that is always on patrol) of 48 warheads provided by the 16 missiles aboard a Vanguard submarine. A similar capacity could be provided by 12 land-based missiles each carrying 4 warheads, or 10 land-based missiles each carrying 5 warheads, if such configurations are allowed by international treaties.

Moving the Trident missiles to land-based silos provides an effective nuclear deterrent until 2030. At that time there will be an option to replace the Trident D-5 missiles with Trident E-6 missiles. A land-based Trident programme is likely to be more cost-effective than a replacement submarine based programme and deserves serious attention.

I have submitted this suggestion to the HM Treasury Spending Challenge site.

Links

A middle way on Trident, by Shirley Williams.

Airport body scanners consultation – my response

Jun 26, 2010 8 comments

The Department for Transport has invited responses from stakeholders on the Government’s interim code of practice for the acceptable use of advanced imaging technology (body scanners) in an aviation security environment. The consultation page is here. The consultation document is here.

My response:

This document, dated 18th June 2010, contains my response to Department for Transport’s consultation “Code of practice for the acceptable use of advanced imaging technology (body scanners) in an aviation security environment” at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010-23/. The consultation paper itself is at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2010-23/consultation.pdf

I am commenting as an individual. My name and address is:
[address removed]
Please remove my address from any published form of this document.

The questions posed in the consultation document are fairly narrow in scope, and miss out some important issues related to the deployment of scanners. For completeness I have answered the questions, however it is important to note that the most important part of my response is in the paragraphs before my answers to the questions.

The decision to introduce and roll out body scanners at UK airports was a knee-jerk reaction in response to a single aviation incident. The trouble with such reactions is that they are made quickly and so there is no time to do a proper analysis and give a considered response. The maxim “act in haste, repent at leisure” applies. We’ve just had one of these ill-thought out schemes put on hold: the home secretary, Theresa May, has just scaled back the child worker vetting scheme – a scheme that was hastily concocted after the Soham murders in 2002. Rather than hastily add yet another ad-hoc airport security measure, we should take the time to make a thorough analysis of the threats to air travel and update our airport security measures accordingly. As security expert Bruce Schneier says “there’s been far too little discussion about what worked and what didn’t, and what will and will not make us safer in the future”.

The introduction of airport scanners is just the latest step in a sequence of piecemeal, reactive, retrospective security measures. There was a shoe bomber, so we start to examine people’s shoes; there was a threat of a liquid bomb, so we ban liquids; there was an underpants bomber, so we decide to introduce technology that enables us to examine people’s underwear. Such an approach is doomed to failure, since it will fail to anticipate the next bomber. Schneier calls this “magical thinking”: “If we defend against what the terrorists did last time, we’ll somehow defend against what they do next time. Of course this doesn’t work”. I repeat: what we need is a proper holistic review of airport security. Let’s take time to make a considered, thorough review of the threats and issues involved, and then act on the recommendations of that review.

All security measures are a trade-off. Whether the trade-off is worthwhile depends on a number of factors including the costs (including non-monetary costs such as inconvenience) and efficacy of the security measures, the risks of the security measures failing, and the consequences of a security failure. The consultation document looks at some of the non-monetary costs of airport scanners (for example, privacy invasion, health risks and risks of discrimination), but fails to consider either the efficacy of scanners or their monetary costs. The following two paragraphs look at these issues.

Efficacy. There is anecdotal evidence that airport scanners “don’t do what it says on the tin”. On a German television program a physics professor demonstrated how to get all the ingredients of an explosive device through a scanner, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ . The “Independent on Sunday” asserts that airport scanners would not have detected the underwear bomber, see “http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html . If scanners don’t actually work reliably, then all the health and safety, privacy, and cost issues are moot – they are simply a waste of money.

Monetary cost. The monetary cost of scanners is important. Not because excessive cost should preclude the use of scanners, but because the question of whether that money could be better spent on other means of security. If airport scanners cost £X million, then the question: “Can we spend £X million on a different security measure that brings more security?” needs to be asked and answered. If the answer is yes, deploying airport scanners actually reduces our security.

The consultation document looks at the issue of privacy, but the analysis is superficial and in some cases erroneous. The following paragraphs look at some of the privacy issues.

The first thing to note about the privacy safeguards is that they reduce security. Paragraph 37 states:

“Security staff viewing images will be separate from, and not be able to identify, the person whose image they are viewing”

Security screening involves a combination of human and technological factors and works best when the two operates in conjunction. For example, when someone is searched, the unconscious signals given off by the person being searched aid the person doing the search. Airport scanners are rendered less effective if the operator cannot identify and observer the person being scanned. For example: “Do they look nervous?”, “Were they fidgeting in the queue?” and so on. By divorcing the human and technological factors in this way the code of practice makes the scanners less effective.

The decision not to offer those selected for scanning an alternative method of screening is flawed from both a privacy and security perspective. Paragraph 23 states: “For many people in society security scanners offer a less intrusive process than a hand search…”. Yes, but not for everybody. For some a hand search is less intrusive, and those who would prefer a hand search should be offered one. Privacy is a personal matter, and offering what the consultation asserts is a minority the alternative of a hand search would enhance privacy without compromising security.

If those who refuse to be scanned are simply not allowed to travel, then a large loophole has been introduced into the scanning process. A bomber can simply go to the airport and hope they aren’t scanned. If they do get selected for scanning then they can just refuse and they will be not allowed to travel – they can go home and try again another day. For this reason, anyone who refuses to be scanned should be searched. If we have compulsory hand search of anyone who refuses to be scanned, they we may as well allow all passengers the choice.

Paragraph 44 states: “The image produced does not show any distinguishing features such as hair or skin tone and it is not possible to recognise people from their facial features”. There are many features that people can be used to recognise people that will show up on the scanner image, for example height. If a queue of people in the airport contains an exceptionally tall or short person, then it will be possible to recognise that person from their image. Similarly if the queue near the scanner includes only one child. If the code of practice requires that an individual is not recognisable from their scanned image, then that requirement cannot consistently be met.

It must be noted that the some of the authority quoted is now outdated. In particular paragraph 19 states: “The Government believes that they[scanners] should be deployed as quickly as possible…” and paragraph 22 states: “The Government believes that this is a proportionate measure to maintain security levels.” The Government changed during the course of the consultation, so these statements may or may not be true.

Question 1: Do you agree with this approach? If not, what changes to the code of practice do you propose?

It is not clear what is meant by “approach”, since no overall approach has been defined, and indeed this is the first use of the word “approach” in the consultation paper. The overall approach to security has been a piecemeal reactive retrospective one. There was a shoe bomber, so we start to examine people’s shoes; there was a threat of a liquid bomb, so we ban liquids; there was an underpants bomber, so we decide to introduce technology that enables us to examine people’s underwear. Such an approach is doomed to failure, since it will fail to anticipate the next bomber.

The approach to airport security needs to be a holistic one. Rather than hastily introduce scanners, we should take a considered approach. We should have an overall review of airport security that looks at all aspects of security. This review should make recommendations about how security should be improved, and we should enact those recommendations.

Question 2: Do you agree that the safeguards outlined in the interim code of practice address all potential privacy concerns? If not, what else should be included?

No. As stated above, for both security and privacy reasons, people who do not wished to be scanned should be allowed to submit to an alternative form of search.

Question 3: Do you agree that the safeguards outlined in the interim code of practice satisfactorily address any potential data protection concerns? If not, what else should be included?

No. Images on the scanning machines may be photographed, so operators of the machines must not be allowed to have cameras or camera-phones on their persons. The issue that people can be identified by distinguishing physical characteristics (such as height) also needs to addressed.

Question 4: Do you agree that the safeguards outlined in the interim code of practice and HPA assessment satisfactorily address any potential health and safety concerns? If not, what further analysis would you wish the Government to undertake?

No. While I am persuaded that, when working correctly, airport scanners probably pose no undue health risk, I don’t think the possibility of malfunction has been sufficiently addressed. I suggest two further safety measures:
i) when a scan is made, a device inside the scanner records the actual level of radiation and displays and records this. This way, if the scanner becomes uncalibrated then it will be immediately apparent, and at most one passenger will be a
affected.
ii) Operators of scanners should wear a device that measures their accumulated exposure to radiation, and this is checked on a daily basis. This would help protect from accidental overexposure to radiation caused by, for example, radiation leakage from a scanner. Presumably operators of X-ray machines in airports already wear a similar device that is sensitive to X-rays; this would be a continuation of this practice.

Question 5: Do you agree that requiring airport operators to discuss with the DFT all prospective use of security scanners as outlined in the interim code of practice satisfactorily addresses the requirement for all equipment to undergo a suitable approval process? If not, what else should be included?

No. The requirement to “discuss with the DFT” is hardy a suitable approval process. An approval process should set out clearly the objective criteria for approval, and then should test applications for deployment of scanners against those criteria.

Question 6: Do you agree that requiring security officers operating security scanners to hold government security clearance and to have received training delivered in accordance with a DfT mandated security scanning training module before deployment satisfactorily addresses the issues of vetting and training? If not, what else should be included?

No. The main issue is vetting, not training. People who view scanned images need to be vetted over and above the standard vetting procedures.

Question 7: Do you agree that the requirements for keeping passengers informed outlined in the interim code of practice are sufficient? If not, what else should be included? And what additional means of communication do you suggest the Government or the travel industry should put into place?

Yes.

Question 8: Do you agree that selection criteria defined in the interim code of practice provide an appropriate safeguard to ensure that passengers are selected for screening on a non-discriminatory basis? If not, how do you suggest passengers should be selected?

Yes.

Question 9: Do you agree that the guidance provided in the Protocol section of the interim code of practice is satisfactory? If not, what else should be included?

No. The Protocol section states: “the details of the protocol are not published due to the security sensitive content.” Why even bother to ask this question?

Question 10: Are there any other issues that you would like to see the final code of practice consider? If so, what and why?

Yes, as stated above the issue of whether airport scanners actually work must be addressed. What tests have been conducted to show they work? The issue of their cost effectiveness must also be addressed. Are their other security measures that, for the same cost as the scanners, could deliver more security than scanners?

Yes. See preliminary section of my response.

A brief overview of COINS

Jun 12, 2010 7 comments

On June 4th, 2010 HM Government released Combined Online Information System (COINS) database, the main database used by HM Treasury budgeting. This is a significant milestone in the opening up of UK government data. The data is available here

This post gives a brief overview of that data, and links to sources that help understand that data. I’ve also done a blog post about a little programming project I did to recreate the government Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses(PESA) reports from the COINS data, see: Using the COINS data to recreate PESA reports

Overview of COINS data

The structure of the COINS data is explained in HM Treasury – Understanding the COINS data

Initially the government released four files in zip format. These unzipped to give:

  • fact_table_extract_2009_10.txt
  • fact_table_extract_2008_09.txt
  • adjustment_table_extract_2009_10.txt
  • adjustment_table_extract_2008_09.txt

A Very brief summary of the file structure

The released files contain the COINS data in unicode format, with fields separated by @ and one record on each line. All amounts are in thousands of pounds.

The Treasury maintains data for recorded spending (outturn), forecast spending (estimated outturn for the latest year) and planned spending (up to three years ahead). The COINS data also includes snapshots of the spending data. The Data_type field has values that reflect this, including “Outturn”, “Forecast Outturn ” (eg “Forecast Outturn March”), “Plans” and “Snapshot”.

A clear distinction is made between current and capital spending, based on Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP). The Resource_Capital field has a value of “Resource” or “Capital” to reflect this.

Departments are given firm three year spending limits called Departmental Expenditure Limits(DELs) within which they prioritise resources and plan ahead. Spending that cannot reasonably be subject to firm multi-year limits, or that relates to certain non-cash transactions, is included in Annually Managed Expenditure(AME). DEL and AME together make up Total Managed Expenditure(TME). The Budget_Boundary field has a value of DEL, AME or Not DEL/AME to reflect this.

Spending is by department. The Department_code field reflects this.

Useful links

Treasury Information

HM Treasury publish documents that may help to understand COINS and, and how that data may be used and aggregated. These include:

HM Treasury publishes a number of documents based COINS data. Public Spending Statistics are available here: Statistics on Public Finance and Spending.

Using the COINS data to recreate PESA reports

Jun 12, 2010 3 comments

On June 4th, 2010 HM Government released Combined Online Information System (COINS) database, the main database used by HM Treasury budgeting. I’ve written a brief overview of the data here. This post is about a little programming project I set myself to actually do something with this data.

The COINS data is in a raw format and needs to be converted to a more useful format before any useful reports can be generated. Mainly out of curiosity, I set myself a project to do something useful with this data. I wanted to do three things:

  • Extract useful subsets of the data that were small enough to be loaded into Excel.
  • Load the COINS data into an SQL database.
  • Recreate some of the government PESA(Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses) reports from the COINS data and check that my results are the same.

The project to do all this is written in python, and I’ve placed it on github here

Extracting useful subsets of the COINS data

The COINS fact_table_extract_2008_09.txt file contains 2,043,129 records that have a non-zero value field: of these 20,566 are outturn records, 1,610,900 are forecast records, 13,733 are plans records, and 397,930 are snapshot records. Older Excel spreadsheets are limited to 65535 rows, and I wanted to produce a useful data set that fit within this limit. The non-zero outturn records easily fit, I’ve made them available on rapidshare: coins2008_09 and coins2009_10.

Loading the COINS data into an SQL database.

I’ve extracted the 2008-09 and the 2009-10 COINS fact data into two SQLite databases: coins_2008_09_sqlite and coins_2009_10_sqlite

Checking my reports against published government data

HM Treasury produces Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses(PESA) reports. I wanted to recreate some of these reports from the COINS data.

I’ve produced outturn Resource, Capital, DEL and AME reports by departmental group from the 2008-09 COINS data, and checked it against the estimated 2008-09 outturn from the PESA 2009 report and the actual 2008-09 outturn from the PESA 2010 report.

The PESA data used was:

The spreadsheet PESA 2010, Chapter 1 tables which contains tables of DEL, AME and TME grouped by Resource and Capital expenditure (from webpage PESA 2010 section 1 – Budgets). 2008-09 subtotals by departmental group are provided in Column G (2008-09 outturn) of the worksheets:

  • Table 1.3 Resource budgets, 2004-05 to 2008-09 (by departmental group)
  • Table 1.6 Capital budgets, 2004-05 to 2008-09 (by departmental group)

The spreadsheet PESA 2010, Chapter 1 tables which contains tables of DEL, AME and TME grouped by Resource and Capital expenditure (from webpage Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2009). 2008-09 subtotals by departmental group are provided in Column G (2008-09 estimated outturn) of the worksheets:

  • Table 1.5 Resource budgets, 2003-04 to 2010-10
  • Table 1.10 Capital budgets, 2003-04 to 2010-11

I produced my report by running the python program coinssqlpesa.py against my generated 2008-09 SQLite database. (See my readme file for a full description of how to recreate these reports.)

The comparisons

The following tables give my results and the PESA result side by side for comparison.

Resource DEL by departmental group (millions)
COINS
2008-09
outturn
PESA
2010
outturn
PESA
2009
estimate
Children, Schools and Families 46,848 46,848 46,848
Health 118,899 90,278 92,455
Transport 6,245 5,083 6,546
Innovation, Universities and Skills N/A N/A 16,666
CLG Communities and Local Government 28,755 4,105
24,651
4,274
24,647
Home Office 9,198 9,198 8,926
Justice 9,234 9,235 9,283
Law Officers’ Departments 723 724 733
Defence 29,790 32,620 37,889
Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2,027 2,027 2,025
International Development 4,758 4,758 4,835
Energy and Climate Change 292 293 1,016
Business, Enterprise and Regularity Reform 175 N/A 1,594
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2,449 2,446 2,654
Culture, Media and Sport 1,455 1,456 1,633
Work and Pensions 7,937 7,937 8,059
Scotland 24,090 24,090 24,599
Wales 12,775 12,799 12,970
Northern Ireland Executive 7,926 7,926 8,117
Northern Ireland Office 1,177 1,177 1,342
Chancellor’s Departments 4,463 4,473 4,826
Cabinet Office 413 1,995 2,049
Independent Bodies 586 791 806
Resource AME by departmental group (millions)
COINS
2008-09
outturn
PESA
2010
outturn
PESA
2009
estimate
Children, Schools and Families -2 10,652 10,914
Health 2,870 14,984 13,934
Transport 602 603 3,878
Innovation, Universities and Skills N/A N/A 274
CLG Communities and Local Government 1,282 621
661
152
660
Home Office 709 710 363
Justice 307 439 725
Law Officers’ Departments 9 9 N/A
Defence 392 6,193 6,864
Foreign and Commonwealth Office -28 -28 -7
International Development 145 213 397
Energy and Climate Change 2,403 2,403 4,589
Business, Enterprise and Regularity Reform 1 N/A 819
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 0 0 -52
Culture, Media and Sport 3,890 3,890 3,911
Work and Pensions 135,344 135,344 135,546
Scotland 4,456 2,495 3,129
Wales 110 138 520
Northern Ireland Executive 6,711 6,104 8,142
Northern Ireland Office 395 396 264
Chancellor’s Departments 71,836 71,209 80,757
Cabinet Office 1 7,174 7,221
Independent Bodies 9 15 24
Capital DEL by departmental group (millions)
COINS
2008-09
outturn
PESA
2010
outturn
PESA
2009
estimate
Children, Schools and Families 5,519 5,519 5,634
Health 11,602 4,370 4,561
Transport 7,182 7,252 7,283
Innovation, Universities and Skills 0 N/A 2,123
CLG Communities and Local Government 7,233 7,112
122
7,125
129
Home Office 836 836 862
Justice 912 912 975
Law Officers’ Departments 8 9 12
Defence 7,754 8,980 8,604
Foreign and Commonwealth Office 226 227 218
International Development 875 875 891
Energy and Climate Change 1,667 1,667 1,688
Business, Enterprise and Regularity Reform 2 N/A 16
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 609 610 618
Culture, Media and Sport 841 842 791
Work and Pensions 91 91 57
Scotland 3,332 3,333 3,337
Wales 1,626 1,627 1,656
Northern Ireland Executive 1,233 1,233 1,137
Northern Ireland Office 67 68 78
Chancellor’s Departments 282 282 293
Cabinet Office 41 397 416
Independent Bodies 32 37 42
Capital AME by departmental group (millions)
COINS
2008-09
outturn
PESA
2010
outturn
PESA
2009
estimate
Children, Schools and Families 0 N/A N/A
Health 3,780 14 14
Transport 22 N/A N/A
Innovation, Universities and Skills 0 N/A 4,230
CLG Communities and Local Government 3,766 516
Home Office 0 N/A N/A
Justice 27 N/A N/A
Law Officers’ Departments 0 N/A N/A
Defence 85 N/A
Foreign and Commonwealth Office 41 N/A 0
International Development 86 N/A N/A
Energy and Climate Change -35 -279 -419
Business, Enterprise and Regularity Reform -210 N/A N/A
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs -12 1 0
Culture, Media and Sport 571 572 717
Work and Pensions 126 136 142
Scotland 900 180 187
Wales 293 168 177
Northern Ireland Executive 611 378 413
Northern Ireland Office 0 N/A N/A
Chancellor’s Departments 86,001 85,822 85,590
Cabinet Office 0 N/A N/A
Independent Bodies 0

The differences

There is good agreement between some of my calculated results and the PESA reports, but there are also some significant differences between the figures.

In the “Resource DEL” and “Capital DEL” tables there is generally good agreement, except for Health, Transport, Defence, Cabinet Office and Independent Bodies departmental groups. The Cabinet Office and Independent Bodies discrepancies could be because some departmental data is missing from the COINS data (see next section). I think the differences in the values for Health are probably because the PESA reports do not include the figures for Scotland, but I haven’t checked this. I have no explanation for the differences between the figures for Transport and Defence.

The agreement for the “Resource AME” and “Capital AME” tables is less good. Some of this disagreement is for the same reasons as the “DEL” differences, but I suspect the main reason for the differences is that my SQL query for the “AME” figures is not correct. (Any corrections to my SQL queries are most appreciated, as are any bug reports or corrections to my programs.)

Missing COINS departmental data

The COINS data does not seem to have spending figures for the following government departments:

  • Assets Recovery Agency
  • Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
  • Office of Communications
  • Forrestry Commision
  • National Investment and Loans Office
  • Royal Mint
  • Office of Government Commerce
  • Security and Intelligence Agencies

This may because the departments have been renamed, or subsumed into other departments.

Next steps

I’ve satisfied my curiosity about the COINS data. I’ve managed to recreate some of the PESA reports, and although there are differences between my reports and the PESA reports, the differences are mostly explainable. I’m not Cliff Stoll, and won’t be tracking down the exact nature of the differences. I don’t plan to do any further work on the COINS data, but may look at future data that is released, especially if it is more detailed.

Feel free to use my programs if you wish – it would nice if you credit me if you do so. I’m also interested in other programming projects that use the COINS data – feel free to post a comment with a link if you do anything interesting with the COINS data.

IPSA MPs’ Expenses Consultation – my response

Feb 13, 2010 1 comment

The newly formed The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has consulted on a new system for managing MPs’ expenses. Its proposal is here.

Unlike some government consultation documents, this one is well written, thorough, and takes a neutral analytical approach to the problem. Normally when responding to government consultations I eschew the questions posed, since they set the agenda for the response, often in a way that is biased in favour of the proposed changes. In this case I think the questions are thorough and unbiased, so I have responded by answering the questions.

My response:

MPs’ Expenses Consultation – comments from Martin Budden
This document, dated 11th February 2010, contains my response to The MP’s Expenses Consultation, at: http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/
I am commenting as an individual. My name and address is:
[address removed]
Please remove my address in any published form of this document.

Question 1: Do you agree that the CSPL’s principles, supplemented as proposed, should form the basis of the new expenses system?

The principles need to be extended with something based on the statement made in paragraph 1.18 of the consultatoin document, namely: “It is not appropriate for an expenses system to be in any way a substitute for salary increases”. It was the sense of entitlement that came with the view that expenses were a substitute for salary that led to the abuse of the expenses system. With such an extension I agree with the principles.

Question 2: Do you agree with our proposal to concentrate on expenses rather than allowances wherever possible?

Yes.

Question 3: Do you agree that there should be annual limits to the amount that can be spent from public funds on each of the main elements of our expenses scheme, except for travel and subsistence?

Yes.

Question 4: Do you agree with our approach to the submission of claims?

Yes.

Question 5: Are you content with our proposed approach to the publication of claims?

Yes.

Question 6: Do you support the idea of requiring MPs to produce an annual report on their use of public funds?

No. The IPSA will publish will publish all expense claims, whether paid or not. Requiring the MPs to reproduce an annual report is an unnecessary duplication and waste of taxpayers’ money.

Question 7: We propose that MPs are eligible to claim for accommodation expenses unless their constituency contains a station within London transport zones 1-6. Do you agree with this approach?

Yes, reluctantly. Although this proposal is not ideal, I agree with your assessment that alternative proposals would either be too subjective or too costly to administer.

Question 8: Which of the following is most important in a long-term system for accommodating MPs:

No money passing through MPs’ hands.

Question 9: When should the payment of mortgage interest to existing MPs be ended?

In three years.

Question 10: Do you agree with our proposed approach to accommodation expenses for MPs with caring responsibilities?

Yes.

Question 11: Do you agree with our proposed list of running costs for accommodation which might be met through public funds?

Yes.

Question 12: Which of the options that we set out do you favour in providing assurance about claims for travel expenses?

Options2: MPs would need to list the date of each journey, its start and end, the distance covered and the reason for it.

Question 13: Do you agree with our approach to travel by public transport, including ordinarily travelling standard class?

Yes.

Question 14: We propose to prohibit the use of public funds in the employment of family members by MPs. Do you agree with this approach?

I don’t think the prohibition goes far enough. The definition of family members should also include uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. There should also be a prohibition on MPs employing family measures of other MPs. This is because MPs have proved particularly devious at abusing the rules – I can see a system where two MPs agree to employ each others’ relatives to get around the rules. I could even see MPs forming ‘cooperatives’ where MPs employed relatives of other MPs in the cooperative to get around the rules.

Question 15: We propose that IPSA should prohibit MPs from renting from, or purchasing goods or services from, members of their families. Do you agree with this approach?

Again, I don’t think this prohibition goes far enough (see my answer to question 14). The definition of family members should also include uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. MPs should be prohibited from renting from, or purchasing goods or services from, members of their families or members of the families of other MPs.

Question 16: Do you agree with our proposed approach to communications expenditure?

Yes.

Question 17: Do you believe there should be any form of payment in the event of an MP leaving Parliament, either voluntarily or otherwise?

Yes, I think MPs should receive a payment on leaving Parliament. A Parliament that has a healthy turnover of MPs is better than a Parliament that contains a large number of career politicians. A payment to MPs on leaving Parliament would help encourage this turnover.

Question 18: What impact do you believe our proposals might have on the diversity of representation in the House of Commons?

Your proposals will reduce the proportion of MPs that are members of the criminal class.

Question 19: Are there further areas we should consider which have not been referred to in this consultation?

Yes. A number of areas:

1) The system should recognise that mistakes can be made and should allow MPs who have made an honest mistake to correct that mistake without being labeled as corrupt.

2) One of the problems with the old system of expenses was that members of the Commons Fees Office were intimidated by MPs. The consultation document does state what measures are proposed to prevent the IPSA from being intimidated by MPs.

3) The consultation document makes no mentions of what sanctions will be applied to MPs who are found to break the new rules. The sanctions need to be able to deal with honest mistakes by MPs (where the sanction would involve repayment and perhaps additional oversight) and deliberate exploitation of the expenses system.

Update

IPSA has published the responses to the consultation here. My response has been published here.

Update 2, 29th March 2010

IPSA has published the New Expenses Scheme for MPs here. The scheme is published in an extremely difficult to read format, and there is no facility to download the scheme in its entirety. My initial response is that I am disappointed, especially because the scheme allows MPs to employ a relative.