The case for a second Chamber

For over 100 years, the need to reform the Upper House of the UK Parliament, the House of Lords, has been mooted.  Sometimes vocally, sometimes as a muttered threat.  Governments of both hues have come and gone, attempts have been made, and the Lords continue to live to fight another day.  It, rather than we, appears to have discovered the secret of eternal life.

Tony Blair had most success in noising it up, but he managed, either on purpose or by compromise, to replace one tribe of unelected, unrepresentative members with a different set.  His shift to appointees has been seized upon with glee by the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has since coming to power in 2010, stuffed the red benches with his own cronies – 117 of them to be exact.

And yet, for all the faults in its DNA, the House of Lords does and has served a purpose.  During the welfare reform bill, when Tory MPs could see no evil, Lib Dem MPs would not hear of any evil, and Labour MPs lost the power to speak out about such evil, charities and organisations turned to the Lords.  They found a willing audience.  Indeed, the most remarkable moment of drama during the passage of the bill was crafted by a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

As the architect of the Child Support Agency in Thatcher’s Government, it was he who led the charge against the worst aspects of the coalition government’s changes, not least that parents with care will have to pay a hefty ransom to have maintenance calculated, collated and paid.  Taking the mouths from babes was never so apt.   His partner at arms, Lord Newton, a former Social Security Minister in the Tory Government, said at the time:  “The proposition … that, if it is not practicable [to make private voluntary arrangements] people should be charged for getting justice and reasonable support for their children, is bordering on the indefensible.“  We all cheered, if somewhat discombobulated at having to rely on their Lord and Ladyships to inject a dollop of fairness into the debate on the future of welfare.

Over the years, the Lords has played its role with aplomb in holding the upstarts over the corridor to account, especially when unassailable majorities meant that opposition was muted on measures that did not stand up to scrutiny.  But, it is still a crony club, and is an anachronism in any modern legislature.

Needless to say, like ferrets in a sack, the cross-party Joint committee of Lords and MPs cannot agree on what a future second Chamber should look like.  Agreeing on the voting system for the purported 80% elected Chamber appears to have been beyond them.  The Committee (or rather, the majority of members who support an elected Chamber at all) “agrees with the government’s proposal for election under the STV system.”  Uninvited, it adds its own views on how to make this work: “in addition, it recommends that voters who wish to vote for candidates by political party rather than individually should be free to do so. The Committee recommends that the STV system currently used in New South Wales should be adopted. This allows voters not only to rank individual candidates, but to vote by party and also to rank the parties so as to control where “excess” party votes are allocated.”  Should be fun.

Of course, for many up here, such wrestling with voting systems and other niceties all seems a tad irrelevant.  As one of the opponents of any reform, Lord Hennessy, pointed out, such deliberations are pointless until after 2014 when Scotland might not be part of the Parliament, and new calculations on numbers and the like might be required.  Many of us don’t care about the Lords because many of us don’t expect to be around to witness its new dawn.

Which begs the question?  Given that it’s taken 100 years and more to come up with a rather imperfect design for a revising chamber upon which everyone has a different opinion, will we be able to come up with something better for independent Scotland?

Yes.  If it’s down to the SNP, there won’t be one.

Policy on such matters is a bit of a moveable feast of late and certainly, the party acknowledges that it is for the Scottish Parliament, post a yes vote, to draft a new constitution for independent Scotland, but according to its draft text for a written constitution, last revised by the late Sir Neil MacCormick, “the Parliament of Scotland shall be a single-chamber Parliament“, to be elected by single-transferable vote.

I used to support this.  But recent events suggest that a second, revising chamber might not be a bad idea.  We might want a second opinion further down the line on controversial proposals and legislation.  Right now, none of us can ever envisage a Scottish Government wanting to privatise the NHS, but things, and times change.  Imagine if we had our very own version of the ConDems railroading through health service reforms that no-one voted for?  Wouldn’t we want brakes to be applied by a revising chamber?

Moreover, until it happened, none of us reckoned on a single party winning a majority under the partially proportionate voting system we have.  Supposing the SNP, happy as it is with having found the formula to break the electoral bank, decides against changing the voting system for the Parliament in our brave, new independent world?  While STV should ensure that no one party dominates the others (and who knows what parties we might have once we’ve all got used to independence and political re-alignments have occurred), but what if we proceed beyond 2016 with the current mix of first past the post and additional vote?  We could, yet again, have a majority government.  In such an instance, a second chamber – a Senate? – might be viewed as a necessary check and balance rather than another costly democratic layer of governance, that many presume it to be.

We might not want what they’ve got, with all its imperfections and the headaches caused by trying to create a modern structure fit for purpose, but when you consider the problems that might arise in independent Scotland from only having a single Parliamentary chamber, suddenly the case for a second one becomes much more compelling.

Guestpost: Pete Wishart MP on why our musicians need ACTA

In response to David Martin MEP’s piece last week on ACTA, and to mark World Intellectual Property Week, the burd is delighted to welcome a fantastic guest post from Pete Wishart with a different view.  Pete is SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is the party’s Westminster spokesperson on the constitution, home affairs, culture, media, sport and international development.  He was the keyboard player in Runrig at the height of the band’s fame and is now a member of MP4, a parliamentary “super-group” made up of MPs from all parties.

Imagine if you will, a perfect Saturday afternoon shopping, and you come across your local record store and in the window is a sign – Everything inside absolutely free, open all hours. That would of course be utter madness and totally unsustainable, but this is what goes on every hour of every day on the internet.

Recorded works, films, TV programmes and digital books simply taken for nothing. Artists, musicians and authors go unrewarded for the work they provide and their works reduced to valueless commodities. Worse than that it is illegal. But the Internet service providers (ISPs) and the search engines that direct people to those illegal sites are not prepared to do anything about it.

Not only does it lose artists revenue, it costs jobs. Our creative industries are just about the fastest growing part of our economy and our recovery from recession could be predicated on growth in this sector. The creative industries account for more than 8% of GDP with around 1.3m jobs in the UK. Up to a quarter of a million of these jobs will be at risk if nothing is done about copyright infringement by 2015.

In Scotland ,our creative economy is if anything more important to us as evidenced for example by Dundee’s computer games sector.

But every effort to address piracy and copyright infringement is vigorously opposed. Self appointed digital rights champions have emerged that have led the protests against each and every measure introduced at Westminster, Europe and the States. It is usually done, almost nonsensically, in the name of “civil liberties” and in opposition to “draconian laws”. Myths are invented and we are then invited to accept them as an orthodoxy.

The response to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) fits very neatly into this package and follows the exaggerated indignation to a tee. And what a lot of nonsense has been said about ACTA. ACTA is, in fact, a non-binding agreement that doesn’t even apply to the UK, which has its own Intellectual Property enforcement following the passing of the Digital Economy Act in 2010.

Contrary to what is being claimed, ISPs are not obliged to monitor traffic; ACTA contains no web-blocking provisions; ACTA won’t block generic drugs. But that doesn’t seem to matter to those opposed. They will oppose ACTA, just like they previously opposed the Digital Economy Act, just like they will oppose the next Act and the one after that.

In fact, they will oppose any measure that seeks to ensure that our artists are justly rewarded and our creative industries secure the tools they require to tackle piracy. They, of cours,e say they “oppose” piracy and “respect” copyright but are not prepared to support any measure that will address infringement.

In the UK, the Government will soon bring forward the measures agreed in the DEA. This was the “last” ACTA if you like and I remember the almost identical fury of the digital rights lobby. But people won’t be cut off from the internet as is alleged (the scare tactic is a standard approach of our digital rights friends).

What those found stealing content will receive is a very nice letter asking them to please stop. To stop taking this stuff for nothing because it is illegal and harms the industries they love. These notifications, it is reckoned will address the bulk of piracy. Tougher responses may be required for the more recalcitrant freeloaders but hopefully they too will cease their illegal activity.

If we do nothing as the opponents of ACTA/DEA/THE NEXT ACT suggest, we’re back to that free online shop of my first paragraph.

Your average musician survives on less than £16,000 a year. Jobs are being lost so people can secure their work for nothing. We require the tools to grow our creative sector and ensure that artists are properly rewarded.

This week is World Intellectual Property Week. The main message is that online products, ideas and creative industries should be given the same protection as anything you’d find in a shop in a retail park.

That’s what’s fair and that’s what this is all about.

 

Regional public pay results in short term pain but offers potential long term gain

One of the many budget leaks to appear over the weekend signalled the death of “nationally” negotiated and settled pay claims for much of the public sector.

Ever the Baldrick, the Chancellor of Exchequer George Osborne has hit upon yet another cunning wheeze to save the taxpayer money by moving to regional pay settlements for the public sector.  Rather than pay increases and salary bands apply right across the UK for jobs of similar worth and type, local scales will apply.  He intends to phase in the introduction and start with three civil service departments.  In keeping with the worst excesses of his Tory nature, I expect him not to start at the top with the mandarins but somewhere near the bottom.  DWP employees seem a good bet:  one more indignity heaped upon those that work in the sharp end of the civil service is too good an opportunity to miss.

These set-piece manoeuvres are rather like a Greek tragedy, with all the stock characters recognisable by the masks they wear.  Deviation from well-worn characteristics would simply confound us.  Thus, the trade unions took no time in coming out screeching.  Regional pay deals will simply entrench the haves and have-nots in terms of our economy, union leaders reckon, and punish hard-pressed workers already suffering due to pay freezes, job losses and rising costs.

Meanwhile, the SNP, determined always to cast itself in the role of hero, quickly established that such a move would be detrimental to Scotland and for many Scottish workers.  Indubitably, Scotland will be one of the areas to lose out, although at this stage the separate Scottish and local government pay bargaining schemes would be unaffected.  The consequence of this will not just be a two-tier system that is geographically based, but at least a three-tier one.  A Scottish clerical assistant in the DWP could feasibly earn not just less than his or her counterpart in Surrey, but also less than someone doing the same job in the NHS or police service.

It is absolutely designed to foment division and will no doubt succeed.  And the SNP is right to stand up for the rights of employees in the UK wide civil service working in Scotland, and right too to point up the risk presented to economic growth and to investment in public services.  The Scottish Government has already worked out that the Tories’ tactical own goal is on the Barnett formula.  Osborne’s sly move will result in less money coming to Scotland as part of the Scottish block grant, giving the SNP the chance to deride the mantra “stronger together, weaker apart”.

Either Osborne really doesn’t do unintended consequences or the conspiracy theorists who reckon that it would suit the Tories very well to be shot of Scotland are beginning to sound like they know what they’re talking about.

It’s an easy and obvious target for the Scottish Government to score a short-term hit, but there are potential, even more lucrative longterm gains to be had.

For many on the left, particularly those in the trade union movement, solidarity and fraternity with fellow workers has always been a bar to even countenancing the idea of independence.  The ability and right to bargain national ie UK wide pay settlements has been a key concern:  it’s the mantra in action.  The best deal for the greatest number of union members, no matter where they live.  And it’s been a hard one for the SNP to break down with many voters who otherwise might be persuadable of the benefits of independence.

Yet, there comes a point for the Scottish leaders and members of public sector unions when they have to put their own needs first, and Osborne might just have helped them reach it.   If the Tories are determined to do good by employees in the South East and make everyone else pay for that, do unions persist in trying to achieve the unachievable and in so doing, subjugate the needs of a majority of their members to the greater good of the whole purpose?  Or do they cut their losses and run and move to driving a hard bargain on a regional basis?

This is where the opportunity lies for the SNP.  Yes, a reduced pay settlement for civil servants based in Scotland will mean less money in the block grant, but could the Scottish Government work with the Welsh and Northern Irish Assembly administrations to create a new, Celtic approach to public sector pay?  By banding together their resources, could they make them go further and while not being able to reinstate the cut fully, at least look at how to minimise its impact on the lowest paid in civil service departments?

If we are to get regional pay bargains imposed, then let’s turn a challenge into an opportunity.  The SNP could take a lead on creating a truly regional approach with the trade unions that breaks down the old monolithic, UK wide structures and encourages them to think differently about their role.  And if the unions refuse outright?  Well, whose side are they on – their own, their party’s or their members?

The SNP considers that with independence, Scotland could be a progressive beacon for opinion south of the border, leading and showing the way on these isles on a range of policies and issues.  By all means, make the short-term noise required over this assault on public sector pay, but also work out how to turn this challenge into an example of how the progressive beacon theme might work in practice.   The requirement to win the political battle of the day does not need to over-ride the desire to win the war.