Paul Evans
@courtenayilbert.bsky.social
Retired Clerk in House of Commons, continuing as a parliamentary nerd; Victorian by nature; books and buildings biggest passions. Lives in and cares about Wales.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc947...
4.7 For tax and National Insurance purposes there is no limit on the value of the cycle
and safety equipment you can provide to an employee.
I'll stop now. Didn't really mean to get involved in a technical argument. Good evening and good luck.
4.7 For tax and National Insurance purposes there is no limit on the value of the cycle
and safety equipment you can provide to an employee.
I'll stop now. Didn't really mean to get involved in a technical argument. Good evening and good luck.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
November 13, 2025 at 8:30 PM
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc947...
4.7 For tax and National Insurance purposes there is no limit on the value of the cycle
and safety equipment you can provide to an employee.
I'll stop now. Didn't really mean to get involved in a technical argument. Good evening and good luck.
4.7 For tax and National Insurance purposes there is no limit on the value of the cycle
and safety equipment you can provide to an employee.
I'll stop now. Didn't really mean to get involved in a technical argument. Good evening and good luck.
That was my point really.
November 13, 2025 at 8:11 PM
That was my point really.
My reading is that they are not proposing to kill the scheme - just cap it (as it was until a few years ago). But this is the trouble with leaking things - it's easy to get the wrong message out.
November 13, 2025 at 8:02 PM
My reading is that they are not proposing to kill the scheme - just cap it (as it was until a few years ago). But this is the trouble with leaking things - it's easy to get the wrong message out.
So are many peoples' season tickets and so forth. I'm not against some subsidy, just unlimited subsidy. And I'm not sure if it needs to cover the full cost if people want to go higher. But anyway, I don't really any longer have much skin in this game - the last (e) bike I bought cost just about £1K.
November 13, 2025 at 8:00 PM
So are many peoples' season tickets and so forth. I'm not against some subsidy, just unlimited subsidy. And I'm not sure if it needs to cover the full cost if people want to go higher. But anyway, I don't really any longer have much skin in this game - the last (e) bike I bought cost just about £1K.
OK fine. I was just confused by your saying I was answering a question you hadn't asked.
November 13, 2025 at 7:56 PM
OK fine. I was just confused by your saying I was answering a question you hadn't asked.
I think you might be a bit of an outlier, but surely there should be a limit on how much tax relief you can get on a bike? We can argue about where the limit should bite, but I can't agree that it should be unlimited. Tho there's an argument to be had about company cars, which is slightly different.
November 13, 2025 at 7:54 PM
I think you might be a bit of an outlier, but surely there should be a limit on how much tax relief you can get on a bike? We can argue about where the limit should bite, but I can't agree that it should be unlimited. Tho there's an argument to be had about company cars, which is slightly different.
So was the question about announcing things to Parliament? To which the answer would be it changed because of, among other things, the growth of spin doctoring and the 24 hour news cycle.
November 13, 2025 at 7:51 PM
So was the question about announcing things to Parliament? To which the answer would be it changed because of, among other things, the growth of spin doctoring and the 24 hour news cycle.
Well largely for the reasons they have given. Even nowadays, £1K is enough to buy a very decent bike, and allowing people to claim salary sacrifice tax benefits for, say, a £5K bike is just another subsidy for the rich.
November 13, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Well largely for the reasons they have given. Even nowadays, £1K is enough to buy a very decent bike, and allowing people to claim salary sacrifice tax benefits for, say, a £5K bike is just another subsidy for the rich.
That practice died many decades ago. Btw, a new bicycle cost ceiling strikes me as entirely sensible.
November 13, 2025 at 5:29 PM
That practice died many decades ago. Btw, a new bicycle cost ceiling strikes me as entirely sensible.
They do not all work on editorial content. I'm sure most of them are engaged in competition issues, rolling out broadband, regulating cold-calling and other telephonic abuses, etc, etc.
November 10, 2025 at 12:24 PM
They do not all work on editorial content. I'm sure most of them are engaged in competition issues, rolling out broadband, regulating cold-calling and other telephonic abuses, etc, etc.
What bothers me is that when I was a young pseud we were busy celebrating the 50th anniversaries of Ulysses, The Waste Land, Mrs Dalloway, A la Recherche, Gatsby, etc, etc, and now everyone is banging on about their centenaries. Were any eternally enduring works of literature published circa 1975?
November 7, 2025 at 1:55 PM
What bothers me is that when I was a young pseud we were busy celebrating the 50th anniversaries of Ulysses, The Waste Land, Mrs Dalloway, A la Recherche, Gatsby, etc, etc, and now everyone is banging on about their centenaries. Were any eternally enduring works of literature published circa 1975?
They could start on London time and finish on Bristol time, which gives them a extra ten minutes wriggle room.
November 4, 2025 at 4:07 PM
They could start on London time and finish on Bristol time, which gives them a extra ten minutes wriggle room.
If GWR adopted Bristol time it would do wonders for their record on delays.
November 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM
If GWR adopted Bristol time it would do wonders for their record on delays.
The explanation is simple: the introduction of lead-free petrol.
November 3, 2025 at 11:49 PM
The explanation is simple: the introduction of lead-free petrol.
3 There is no evidence that application of this privilege has caused any harm, and given the frequency of vexatious litigation, it is reasonably foreseeable that ending it could interfere with Members' primary duty to attend Parliament.
October 31, 2025 at 4:37 PM
3 There is no evidence that application of this privilege has caused any harm, and given the frequency of vexatious litigation, it is reasonably foreseeable that ending it could interfere with Members' primary duty to attend Parliament.
2 At para 265 the Committee concludes: We do not recommend any change in Members' right not to respond to a court summons as a witness. /3
October 31, 2025 at 4:37 PM
2 At para 265 the Committee concludes: We do not recommend any change in Members' right not to respond to a court summons as a witness. /3
4 In the distant past MPs required leave of absence from the House if they were not to attend a sitting. That requirement has long been obsolete, but it remains an inherent privilege of the House that the attendance of MPs takes precedence over any other call on their time.
October 29, 2025 at 7:25 PM
4 In the distant past MPs required leave of absence from the House if they were not to attend a sitting. That requirement has long been obsolete, but it remains an inherent privilege of the House that the attendance of MPs takes precedence over any other call on their time.
3 The freedom of MPs to attend the business of the House is an assertion of the House's privilege - see the now purely picturesque claim to the freedom from arrest made by the Speaker at the start of each Parliament. /4
October 29, 2025 at 7:25 PM
3 The freedom of MPs to attend the business of the House is an assertion of the House's privilege - see the now purely picturesque claim to the freedom from arrest made by the Speaker at the start of each Parliament. /4
2 It was necessary once to petition the House for a Member to appear as a witness - a requirement long since waived. but perhaps revivable if the MP wishes to resist. The purpose was partly to prevent the use of witness summons vexatiously to interfere with parliamentary business./3
October 29, 2025 at 7:25 PM
2 It was necessary once to petition the House for a Member to appear as a witness - a requirement long since waived. but perhaps revivable if the MP wishes to resist. The purpose was partly to prevent the use of witness summons vexatiously to interfere with parliamentary business./3
With respect to Q3, I infer that the Speaker was not intervening except to certify that the attendance of Ms Reeves was necessary for parliamentary business. /2
October 29, 2025 at 7:25 PM
With respect to Q3, I infer that the Speaker was not intervening except to certify that the attendance of Ms Reeves was necessary for parliamentary business. /2
Clever people understand why, not what.
October 20, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Clever people understand why, not what.
That's because they should be saying " film biography" or "lifestory told in the medium of film" instead of inventing a completely unhelpful and entirely inelegant neologism (and yes, I know it's been around for donkeys years but it still brasses me off).
October 19, 2025 at 9:33 PM
That's because they should be saying " film biography" or "lifestory told in the medium of film" instead of inventing a completely unhelpful and entirely inelegant neologism (and yes, I know it's been around for donkeys years but it still brasses me off).
Tofu and the Birkenstocks (I'll let you guess)
October 11, 2025 at 9:56 PM
Tofu and the Birkenstocks (I'll let you guess)