This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/europe/save-a-few-pennies-on-champagne-lawmakers-in-britains-house-of-lords-are-aghast.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Save a Few Pennies on Champagne? Lawmakers in Britain’s House of Lords Are Aghast Save a Few Pennies on Champagne? Lawmakers in Britain’s House of Lords Are Aghast
(35 minutes later)
LONDON — These are tough times in Britain. Half a million British children are going hungry, the government plans to cut public spending to a share of the economy not seen since the 1930s, and the honorable lords and ladies of the House of Lords have come under attack for their Champagne subsidy. LONDON — These are tough times in Britain. Half a million British children are going hungry, the government plans to cut public spending to a share of the economy not seen since the 1930s, and the honorable lords and ladies of the House of Lords have come under attack for their Champagne budget.
But hardship breeds revolt, even, it appears, by the peers of the realm. The Champagne wars, as some here call them, broke out in recent weeks after news that the lords and ladies had rejected a proposal a few years ago to save the taxpayers some money by merging the catering department of their chamber, the unelected upper house of Parliament, with that of the House of Commons, the elected lower chamber. Apparently, “the lords feared that the quality of Champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.”But hardship breeds revolt, even, it appears, by the peers of the realm. The Champagne wars, as some here call them, broke out in recent weeks after news that the lords and ladies had rejected a proposal a few years ago to save the taxpayers some money by merging the catering department of their chamber, the unelected upper house of Parliament, with that of the House of Commons, the elected lower chamber. Apparently, “the lords feared that the quality of Champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.”
Those words, from Malcolm Jack, a former clerk of the Commons who was interviewed by a committee of lawmakers this month, caused some astonishment.Those words, from Malcolm Jack, a former clerk of the Commons who was interviewed by a committee of lawmakers this month, caused some astonishment.
“Is that true? Did you make that up?” asked the chairman of the committee, Jack Straw, a former home secretary.“Is that true? Did you make that up?” asked the chairman of the committee, Jack Straw, a former home secretary.
“Yes, it is true,” Mr. Jack replied.“Yes, it is true,” Mr. Jack replied.
The House of Lords, which gets an annual catering subsidy of 1.3 million pounds, or $2 million, has spent $415,563 on about 17,000 bottles of Champagne since the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron took office in 2010 and started cutting public spending. That is roughly five bottles for each of its 791 peers each year.The House of Lords, which gets an annual catering subsidy of 1.3 million pounds, or $2 million, has spent $415,563 on about 17,000 bottles of Champagne since the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron took office in 2010 and started cutting public spending. That is roughly five bottles for each of its 791 peers each year.
Owen Williams, a spokesman for the House of Lords, disputed the idea that the proposal to merge the catering services had ever been discussed, calling Mr. Jack’s testimony “inaccurate.” In an interview, Mr. Williams also pointed out that the bubbly was not given to peers for free, but sold at a profit in their private bars and at banquets.Owen Williams, a spokesman for the House of Lords, disputed the idea that the proposal to merge the catering services had ever been discussed, calling Mr. Jack’s testimony “inaccurate.” In an interview, Mr. Williams also pointed out that the bubbly was not given to peers for free, but sold at a profit in their private bars and at banquets.
But at a time of widespread hunger and plans for deep budget cuts, that explanation did little to help the image of the lords and ladies. The British news media condemned “pampered peers” and “Champagne Charlies,” questioning the rationale not only for a Champagne budget but also for keeping a mostly appointed and still partly hereditary house — a legislative chamber that is now the world’s biggest, outside China, because no one is ever forced to retire.But at a time of widespread hunger and plans for deep budget cuts, that explanation did little to help the image of the lords and ladies. The British news media condemned “pampered peers” and “Champagne Charlies,” questioning the rationale not only for a Champagne budget but also for keeping a mostly appointed and still partly hereditary house — a legislative chamber that is now the world’s biggest, outside China, because no one is ever forced to retire.
“The fact that their lordships might not want to choose from the same wine list as the plebs in the Commons has raised the question again as to why Britain still has an unelected upper house,” The Economist wrote in this week’s issue.“The fact that their lordships might not want to choose from the same wine list as the plebs in the Commons has raised the question again as to why Britain still has an unelected upper house,” The Economist wrote in this week’s issue.
News of the Champagne budget has also sharpened the focus on the widening gap between the privileged few and those less fortunate.News of the Champagne budget has also sharpened the focus on the widening gap between the privileged few and those less fortunate.
While members of the House of Lords can claim £300 a day simply for showing up, the number of people receiving emergency food aid from the Trussel Trust — the country’s largest food bank charity — on at least three days last year rose above 913,000, a nearly threefold increase from the previous year.While members of the House of Lords can claim £300 a day simply for showing up, the number of people receiving emergency food aid from the Trussel Trust — the country’s largest food bank charity — on at least three days last year rose above 913,000, a nearly threefold increase from the previous year.
A new parliamentary report, jointly compiled with the Church of England, urged lawmakers to face “the simple but devastating fact that hunger stalks this country.”A new parliamentary report, jointly compiled with the Church of England, urged lawmakers to face “the simple but devastating fact that hunger stalks this country.”
The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who announced the report’s release last week, described his shock at seeing people lining up outside food banks. Frank Field, a lawmaker from the Labour Party who helped to lead the inquiry that the report was based on, said half a million children lived in families that were unable to feed them, and in half of all British families, an adult skipped a meal each day. “Something disturbing is happening,” he told reporters. Families, devastated by wage stagnation and delays in benefit payments, are often only “one bill away” from crisis.The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who announced the report’s release last week, described his shock at seeing people lining up outside food banks. Frank Field, a lawmaker from the Labour Party who helped to lead the inquiry that the report was based on, said half a million children lived in families that were unable to feed them, and in half of all British families, an adult skipped a meal each day. “Something disturbing is happening,” he told reporters. Families, devastated by wage stagnation and delays in benefit payments, are often only “one bill away” from crisis.
The report panel, which interviewed 155 witnesses and received 246 written submissions, said that its very existence would have been unthinkable 30 years ago, when the assumption was that “nobody in Britain could be hungry unless they wished to be.”The report panel, which interviewed 155 witnesses and received 246 written submissions, said that its very existence would have been unthinkable 30 years ago, when the assumption was that “nobody in Britain could be hungry unless they wished to be.”
The government has rejected the notion that four years of budget cuts have anything to do with the increasing use of food banks. A government spokesman told The Daily Mirror, “We should remember that this country has been through the deepest recession in living memory, and sticking to this government’s long-term economic plan is the best way to improve living standards.”The government has rejected the notion that four years of budget cuts have anything to do with the increasing use of food banks. A government spokesman told The Daily Mirror, “We should remember that this country has been through the deepest recession in living memory, and sticking to this government’s long-term economic plan is the best way to improve living standards.”
But the $86 billion in spending cuts implied by a budget statement delivered to Parliament on Dec. 3 by George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, were described as brutal. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an economic policy think tank, said the cuts, scheduled between next year’s general election and 2020, might require a “fundamental reimagining” of the role of the state.But the $86 billion in spending cuts implied by a budget statement delivered to Parliament on Dec. 3 by George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, were described as brutal. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an economic policy think tank, said the cuts, scheduled between next year’s general election and 2020, might require a “fundamental reimagining” of the role of the state.
As economists and labor unions wondered whether the planned austerity measures would take Britain back to the precariousness of Victorian times or merely to something like the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Office for Budget Responsibility, a nonpartisan economic think tank, calculated that if Mr. Osborne followed through, government consumption of goods and services would fall to its lowest share of gross domestic product since 1938.As economists and labor unions wondered whether the planned austerity measures would take Britain back to the precariousness of Victorian times or merely to something like the aftermath of the Great Depression, the Office for Budget Responsibility, a nonpartisan economic think tank, calculated that if Mr. Osborne followed through, government consumption of goods and services would fall to its lowest share of gross domestic product since 1938.
One member of the House of Lords, Patrick Jenkin, decided to set an example this week by retiring at age 88. He is urging his fellow octogenarians to do the same. “I see some of these extinct volcanoes sitting on the back bench of the Labour Party and they are just waiting for some money,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “It is a great shame. It can’t go on.”One member of the House of Lords, Patrick Jenkin, decided to set an example this week by retiring at age 88. He is urging his fellow octogenarians to do the same. “I see some of these extinct volcanoes sitting on the back bench of the Labour Party and they are just waiting for some money,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “It is a great shame. It can’t go on.”
Meanwhile, Anne Jenkin, a Conservative member of the House of Lords who is the daughter-in-law of Mr. Jenkin, offered her own explanation for the country’s increasing hunger: “Poor people do not know how to cook.”Meanwhile, Anne Jenkin, a Conservative member of the House of Lords who is the daughter-in-law of Mr. Jenkin, offered her own explanation for the country’s increasing hunger: “Poor people do not know how to cook.”
Her bowl of porridge in the morning, Ms. Jenkin said, costs 4 pence, far less than the “sugary cereal” poor people eat.Her bowl of porridge in the morning, Ms. Jenkin said, costs 4 pence, far less than the “sugary cereal” poor people eat.
It turns out that Ms. Jenkin is a member of the Lords’ Refreshment Committee, which is in charge of Champagne procurement. She later apologized for any offense her comments might have caused, but the damage was done. Ms. Jenkin’s words quickly made headlines.It turns out that Ms. Jenkin is a member of the Lords’ Refreshment Committee, which is in charge of Champagne procurement. She later apologized for any offense her comments might have caused, but the damage was done. Ms. Jenkin’s words quickly made headlines.
“Let them eat porridge!” the newspapers said.“Let them eat porridge!” the newspapers said.