Today’s Scotsman is running the latest instalment in a series of attacks on trade union facility time, with a focus on the public sector. It follows on from similar stories in the Telegraph, Daily Mail etc and a range of Freedom of Information requests from the so called Tax Payers Alliance. In fairness to the Scotsman, today's article is at least a more balanced presentation of the issue.
The ConDem coalition has not as yet announced a detailed attack on facility time as part of their broader undermining of employment rights (see my blog post last week on fairness in employment). However, another shadowy right wing group the Trade Union Reform Campaign, set up by Tory MP Aidan Burley, has denounced facility time in the public sector as a “public subsidy” of unions. The Prime Minister endorsed the attack on facility time in the House of Commons after the November 30 strike, saying, “I don’t think that is right and we are going to put that to an end.” Francis Maude has announced a review of facility time in the civil service.
The last UK Labour Government conducted a review of facility time and published a series of recommendations including positive examples of the effective role of workplace representatives. This led to a revised ACAS Code of Practice in January 2010. So the law and practice has been recently reviewed. The arrangements were launched with support right across the public and private sectors, as well from trade unions and employer organisations.
The TUC has produced a rebuttal to the latest attacks in their publication The Facts about Facility Time. Some key statistics include:
• Overall productivity gains worth between £4bn to 12bn to the UK economy;
• Savings of at least £19 million as a result of reducing dismissals;
• Savings to employers of between £82m - £143m in recruitment by reducing early exits.
• UK GDP value of the work of ULRs in encouraging training is estimated at £6 billion.
UNISON has also produced a guide to facility time. This sets out the statutory entitlements and the key service group agreements as well an explanation of what facility times is used for.
Local reps help to sort out problems before they become serious. Reps with sufficient time will be able to tackle grievances or disputes at a local level before they mushroom. This will often save time and money by preventing the need for cases to go to a higher level of management or Employment Tribunal.
Union reps make a big contribution to the management of change. Large scale reorganisation, major new agreements or changes to legislation put big burdens on HR departments. Working with a team of skilled union reps can ease the workload and improve the results. Union reps can facilitate change by explaining the procedure, supporting members and ensuring that the process is carried out correctly. Facility time assists the employer in fulfilling their legal responsibilities towards employees; providing support and representation to individuals and as a mechanism
Most employer organisations are on record as supporting the role of the workplace representative and appropriate facility time. But that won’t stop ideology getting in the way of the facts.
PS. The Morning Star has a report this morning (25 January) on the Tory Trade Union Reform Group meeting with Eric Pickles.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Fairness in Employment?
The Prime Minister is making a big play of his 'fairness' agenda at present. So let's see how far his concept of fairness stretches into employment rights.
The first major attack, to be implemented this April, is on the Employment Tribunal system. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal is to be lengthened from one year to two. The next proposal is to charge workers to access Employment Tribunals as much as £1,250 for a full hearing, more if the claim exceeds £30,000. There are also a number of procedural changes proposed including new Pre-Claim Conciliation arrangements, wider powers for Employment Judges to strike out claims, higher cost orders and reducing the role of lay Tribunal members.
Other attacks on employment rights include:
Pension auto-enrolment was supposed to start this year, but the government has announced a delay for employers with fewer than 3,000 employees. The gradual increase in employer pension contributions is also to be delayed. These measures are aimed at creating a pensions saving culture for those workers excluded from schemes by employers who are happy to have the taxpayer subsidise their responsibilities. While at the same time the same bosses boost their own massive pensions.
I have commented earlier on changes to health and safety law. Barely a day goes by without a report of an industrial accident or illness, often with tragic consequences. Grayrigg and this week's cruise ship disaster should remind us that health and safety is probably the most important protection workers and their families have. We did not vote to die at work.
While some of the proposals are presented as simplifying the system, in reality they mostly have the aim of reducing workers rights, making it easier for unscrupulous employers to sack staff. As always it will be low paid workers who suffer most, primarily through charging for access to justice. The government's arguments about rising claims and cost simply don't stack up. If you strip out the multiple equal pay cases the number of ET applications are falling. Far from inhibiting new businesses the UK already has some of the weakest employment legislation in the world. A World Bank study confirmed that the UK is the third easiest place to start and run a company after Hong Kong and New Zealand. The Chair of the Independent Tribunals council said the suggested ET changes would "bring little benefit to employers or to the tribunal system while having a disproportionate and chilling effect on employees."
Many will rightly see these attacks as a return to the Thatcher era. A key feature of that period was the increasing reliance on EU employment standards. There are a wide range of employment law proposals at various stages of the EU legislative process. They include revisions to the Working Time and Posted Workers Directives, pensions, migrant workers rights, pregnant workers, equal pay and carers leave. Given the current political balance in the EU it may be difficult to make progress on many of these. However, EU law may again be an important safeguard for British workers.
There may also be unforeseen consequences. Cutting unfair dismissal rights may mean a switch to claims based on other rights that don't have a qualifying period. These claims are often more complex and time consuming for tribunals. An increase in cases to the civil courts is also a possibility. It could also lead to a change in approach from trade unions. If there is no effective legal redress then industrial action becomes the only alternative. Some of us can remember the days when disputes around unfair dismissal were much more common than today. Even in unorganised workplaces, the absence of lawful solutions can lead to other forms of protest.
The government also fails to see the obvious economic consequences. Insecure workers do not take out mortgages or make larger purchases. This drives down demand exacerbating the already serious consequences austerity measures are having on growth. As Brendan Barber pointed out good employers have little to fear from tribunal claims; "if firms treated their staff fairly, few would ever find themselves taken to court." This is another consequence of the attack on workers rights. It creates a race to the bottom were the bad employers drag the good ones down to the sewer.
Underlying this issue is a debate on the sort of UK we want to live in. Do we want the UK to become a low wage, insecure place to work? Driving down living standards for the many, while the rich and powerful exploit a compliant workforce. If that's Cameron's definition of 'fairness', he can keep it.
The first major attack, to be implemented this April, is on the Employment Tribunal system. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal is to be lengthened from one year to two. The next proposal is to charge workers to access Employment Tribunals as much as £1,250 for a full hearing, more if the claim exceeds £30,000. There are also a number of procedural changes proposed including new Pre-Claim Conciliation arrangements, wider powers for Employment Judges to strike out claims, higher cost orders and reducing the role of lay Tribunal members.
Other attacks on employment rights include:
- Taking away legal advice safeguards in compromise agreements
- A 'Rapid Resolution Scheme' for straightforward claims
- Introduction of 'protected conversations' - a licence to bully employees.
- A 'compensated no-fault' dismissal scheme for smaller firms together with wider reforms to make it easier to dismiss by reducing procedural safeguards.
- Reducing the consultation period on collective redundancies and weakening consultation rights, particularly for trade unions.
- Similar proposals to weaken TUPE provisions.
Pension auto-enrolment was supposed to start this year, but the government has announced a delay for employers with fewer than 3,000 employees. The gradual increase in employer pension contributions is also to be delayed. These measures are aimed at creating a pensions saving culture for those workers excluded from schemes by employers who are happy to have the taxpayer subsidise their responsibilities. While at the same time the same bosses boost their own massive pensions.
I have commented earlier on changes to health and safety law. Barely a day goes by without a report of an industrial accident or illness, often with tragic consequences. Grayrigg and this week's cruise ship disaster should remind us that health and safety is probably the most important protection workers and their families have. We did not vote to die at work.
While some of the proposals are presented as simplifying the system, in reality they mostly have the aim of reducing workers rights, making it easier for unscrupulous employers to sack staff. As always it will be low paid workers who suffer most, primarily through charging for access to justice. The government's arguments about rising claims and cost simply don't stack up. If you strip out the multiple equal pay cases the number of ET applications are falling. Far from inhibiting new businesses the UK already has some of the weakest employment legislation in the world. A World Bank study confirmed that the UK is the third easiest place to start and run a company after Hong Kong and New Zealand. The Chair of the Independent Tribunals council said the suggested ET changes would "bring little benefit to employers or to the tribunal system while having a disproportionate and chilling effect on employees."
Many will rightly see these attacks as a return to the Thatcher era. A key feature of that period was the increasing reliance on EU employment standards. There are a wide range of employment law proposals at various stages of the EU legislative process. They include revisions to the Working Time and Posted Workers Directives, pensions, migrant workers rights, pregnant workers, equal pay and carers leave. Given the current political balance in the EU it may be difficult to make progress on many of these. However, EU law may again be an important safeguard for British workers.
There may also be unforeseen consequences. Cutting unfair dismissal rights may mean a switch to claims based on other rights that don't have a qualifying period. These claims are often more complex and time consuming for tribunals. An increase in cases to the civil courts is also a possibility. It could also lead to a change in approach from trade unions. If there is no effective legal redress then industrial action becomes the only alternative. Some of us can remember the days when disputes around unfair dismissal were much more common than today. Even in unorganised workplaces, the absence of lawful solutions can lead to other forms of protest.
The government also fails to see the obvious economic consequences. Insecure workers do not take out mortgages or make larger purchases. This drives down demand exacerbating the already serious consequences austerity measures are having on growth. As Brendan Barber pointed out good employers have little to fear from tribunal claims; "if firms treated their staff fairly, few would ever find themselves taken to court." This is another consequence of the attack on workers rights. It creates a race to the bottom were the bad employers drag the good ones down to the sewer.
Underlying this issue is a debate on the sort of UK we want to live in. Do we want the UK to become a low wage, insecure place to work? Driving down living standards for the many, while the rich and powerful exploit a compliant workforce. If that's Cameron's definition of 'fairness', he can keep it.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
The year ahead
Happy New Year! Although I am probably going to describe a year ahead that looks far from happy. I am back at work after a decent break and thinking about the year ahead as I trundle home on a train from London.
Of course there are a number of positive things I will wish for in 2012. Fulham winning the Premier League and FA Cup; Lancashire retaining the County Championship; keeping to my post- Xmas diet; lowering my golf handicap and reading more of the growing pile of books on the ‘to read’ shelf or stacking up on the Kindle.
However, reality intervenes and I need to focus on the more likely challenges in the year ahead.
On the bargaining front it looks like another difficult year. Pay will need to return to the top of the agenda as the pay freeze continues to undermine standards of living. Public service reform will also be a big issue this year with health and social care integration, police and fire reorganisation some of the early challenges. Public bodies will try and meet ever diminishing budgets by constantly reorganising in the search for often illusory efficiency savings. We also need to sort out how we approach procurement in Scotland. 2011 wasn’t a good year for well thought out procurement and although we had a lot of success in stopping some of the worst ones; there are better ways of tackling these issues.
Pensions will remain high on the bargaining agenda. I was in London today to discuss the proposed framework for further negotiations on the schemes in England and Wales. It was helpful to get an accurate description of recent events from the General Secretary after some of the nonsense that has been published. Our elected representatives on the service group executives have sanctioned further negotiations as the way ahead. We will pursue our own negotiations on the Scottish pension schemes.
The ConDem coalition will seek to attack workers rights under the guise of reducing business burdens. Unfair dismissal rights lost for the first two years, starting in April. This is to be followed by attacks on TUPE and collective redundancy consultation. The weakest employment rights in Western Europe are far from a burden on anyone. But worse of all is the assault on health and safety. Too many workers die or are injured every day at work. Recent figures show that less than 3% of complaints to the HSE result in prosecutions in Scotland and even FAIs are not happening when they should. So much for the safety culture.
Politically we will have local government elections for every council seat. This is the first time for a while that we have had stand alone council elections in Scotland and that should give a welcome focus on local government issues. I have been finalising a draft UNISON Scotland manifesto for the elections that highlights a range of issues of concern to members. The PR system doesn’t always deliver radical change at ward level, but we will have to wait and see. Increasing centralisation and punitive budgets will make this a difficult year for councils whoever wins the elections.
It won’t be much better for health boards despite the slightly higher funding levels. Real costs will exceed the notional inflation allowance and demand will rise through demographic change in particular.
At the national level we have new party leaders who will want to make their mark in 2012. Johann Lamont in particular has a difficult job knitting together all the elements of the Scottish Labour Party into a cohesive unit. Blairites will no doubt continue to plot away, undermining Ed Miliband at UK level and we will need to work hard to ensure none of that nonsense strays north of the border.
The legislative programme in the Scottish Parliament is not huge, but there will be some interesting issues. The Scotland Bill should grind out to a conclusion and it appears that Westminster might force the pace on the independence referendum. On the one hand any involvement of Cameron in Scotland plays badly. On the other, three more years of blaming Westminster for every ill in Scotland is going to get very monotonous. We will try and steer the debate away from the constitutional detail onto what sort of Scotland we want early in the New Year and I have just finished a discussion paper on that very issue.
We will want to refresh our Public Works campaign this year to continue to make the case against the ideological attack on public services. There is a better way and we need to find new ways of getting the message across.
Sadly, not a lot of good things to look forward to. In fact it looks like a long list of the euphemistically phrased ‘challenges’. One positive is the way we faced up to the challenges last year. Lots of good people working together to fight for what we believe in. More of that in 2012 and we won’t go far wrong. Oh and Fulham might win the double!
Of course there are a number of positive things I will wish for in 2012. Fulham winning the Premier League and FA Cup; Lancashire retaining the County Championship; keeping to my post- Xmas diet; lowering my golf handicap and reading more of the growing pile of books on the ‘to read’ shelf or stacking up on the Kindle.
However, reality intervenes and I need to focus on the more likely challenges in the year ahead.
On the bargaining front it looks like another difficult year. Pay will need to return to the top of the agenda as the pay freeze continues to undermine standards of living. Public service reform will also be a big issue this year with health and social care integration, police and fire reorganisation some of the early challenges. Public bodies will try and meet ever diminishing budgets by constantly reorganising in the search for often illusory efficiency savings. We also need to sort out how we approach procurement in Scotland. 2011 wasn’t a good year for well thought out procurement and although we had a lot of success in stopping some of the worst ones; there are better ways of tackling these issues.
Pensions will remain high on the bargaining agenda. I was in London today to discuss the proposed framework for further negotiations on the schemes in England and Wales. It was helpful to get an accurate description of recent events from the General Secretary after some of the nonsense that has been published. Our elected representatives on the service group executives have sanctioned further negotiations as the way ahead. We will pursue our own negotiations on the Scottish pension schemes.
The ConDem coalition will seek to attack workers rights under the guise of reducing business burdens. Unfair dismissal rights lost for the first two years, starting in April. This is to be followed by attacks on TUPE and collective redundancy consultation. The weakest employment rights in Western Europe are far from a burden on anyone. But worse of all is the assault on health and safety. Too many workers die or are injured every day at work. Recent figures show that less than 3% of complaints to the HSE result in prosecutions in Scotland and even FAIs are not happening when they should. So much for the safety culture.
Politically we will have local government elections for every council seat. This is the first time for a while that we have had stand alone council elections in Scotland and that should give a welcome focus on local government issues. I have been finalising a draft UNISON Scotland manifesto for the elections that highlights a range of issues of concern to members. The PR system doesn’t always deliver radical change at ward level, but we will have to wait and see. Increasing centralisation and punitive budgets will make this a difficult year for councils whoever wins the elections.
It won’t be much better for health boards despite the slightly higher funding levels. Real costs will exceed the notional inflation allowance and demand will rise through demographic change in particular.
At the national level we have new party leaders who will want to make their mark in 2012. Johann Lamont in particular has a difficult job knitting together all the elements of the Scottish Labour Party into a cohesive unit. Blairites will no doubt continue to plot away, undermining Ed Miliband at UK level and we will need to work hard to ensure none of that nonsense strays north of the border.
The legislative programme in the Scottish Parliament is not huge, but there will be some interesting issues. The Scotland Bill should grind out to a conclusion and it appears that Westminster might force the pace on the independence referendum. On the one hand any involvement of Cameron in Scotland plays badly. On the other, three more years of blaming Westminster for every ill in Scotland is going to get very monotonous. We will try and steer the debate away from the constitutional detail onto what sort of Scotland we want early in the New Year and I have just finished a discussion paper on that very issue.
We will want to refresh our Public Works campaign this year to continue to make the case against the ideological attack on public services. There is a better way and we need to find new ways of getting the message across.
Sadly, not a lot of good things to look forward to. In fact it looks like a long list of the euphemistically phrased ‘challenges’. One positive is the way we faced up to the challenges last year. Lots of good people working together to fight for what we believe in. More of that in 2012 and we won’t go far wrong. Oh and Fulham might win the double!
Friday, 23 December 2011
PFI is dead - long live PFI!
Scottish Ministers are fond of saying that Scotland is being "set free from the shackles of PFI". Sadly this misrepresents the continuing widespread use of private finance in public infrastructure through a range of PPP models. It's an old trick of political spin to change a name or two, but it's substance that matters.
Despite vociferous criticism of the previous administration's use of PPP/PFI, the Scottish Government is planning one of the largest PPP programmes in Europe. Ministers avoid using the acronym PPP, although officials when pressed do own up.
Instead they refer to NPD (Non-Profit Distributing Trusts). The NPD model is simply a cosmetic change to existing PFI schemes. It retains the higher borrowing costs, private profit at the contractor level and elements of the risk transfer costs all leading to the same profiteering and inflexibility inherent in PFI.
The other rebranding is called the Hub initiative, which uses Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) PPP contracts for „community facilities e.g. health centres, schools, police & fire services. The Hub initiative is based on the English Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) health PFI scheme. Also, waste infrastructure contracts are based on English PFI ones and the National Housing Trust is a form of PPP.
So why are we returning to PPP via this elaborate political spin? To be fair these PPP schemes are better than their predecessors, but that would be true of every private finance scheme as the procurement staff learn lessons, at the taxpayers expense. The real reason is a complex mix of off-balance sheet financing and the relentless chase for the free lunch. Enron economics are alive and well in Scotland.
What's the alternative?
Despite vociferous criticism of the previous administration's use of PPP/PFI, the Scottish Government is planning one of the largest PPP programmes in Europe. Ministers avoid using the acronym PPP, although officials when pressed do own up.
Instead they refer to NPD (Non-Profit Distributing Trusts). The NPD model is simply a cosmetic change to existing PFI schemes. It retains the higher borrowing costs, private profit at the contractor level and elements of the risk transfer costs all leading to the same profiteering and inflexibility inherent in PFI.
The other rebranding is called the Hub initiative, which uses Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) PPP contracts for „community facilities e.g. health centres, schools, police & fire services. The Hub initiative is based on the English Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) health PFI scheme. Also, waste infrastructure contracts are based on English PFI ones and the National Housing Trust is a form of PPP.
So why are we returning to PPP via this elaborate political spin? To be fair these PPP schemes are better than their predecessors, but that would be true of every private finance scheme as the procurement staff learn lessons, at the taxpayers expense. The real reason is a complex mix of off-balance sheet financing and the relentless chase for the free lunch. Enron economics are alive and well in Scotland.
What's the alternative?
- PPP/PFI contract buyouts that produce savings. A 2011 SFT review didn't calculate potential savings because, it said, "termination would bring assets back into the public sector for accounting purposes and the capital budget required for this is not currently affordable". In other words Enron economics.
- Prudential borrowing for health boards to plug the biggest gap in the conventional borrowing regime.
- Provide a genuine level playing field, with Scottish Government funding support offered to new projects irrespective of the proposed method of procurement.
- Extend Freedom of Information laws to all companies and other bodies providing public services. The capacity to effectively scrutinise the true costs of PPP is essential.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Scottish Living Wage
I was giving evidence yesterday to the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Regeneration Committee as part of their living wage inquiry.
It can be argued that there has been a greater focus in recent years on tackling poverty in families with children and older people than those at work. The living wage is a key element in tackling poverty for those at work and the Scottish Living Wage Campaign has been at the forefront of efforts to extend this concept in Scotland.
The living wage is intended to provide a level of pay that adequately allows workers to provide for themselves and their families. The current rate in Scotland is £7.20 per hour. This is paid to staff in the direct employment of the Scottish Government including the NHS. Seven local authorities have adopted the Scottish Living Wage, most notably Glasgow that has also encouraged a wider take up in the city.
This still leaves 18,432 workers (7%) in local councils who are paid below the living wage. There are also around 350,000 workers in Scotland earning below this level including many in the private and voluntary sector who provide public services. For this reason the committee focused in my panel on how we can expand the coverage of living wage.
Some local authorities claim they can't implement the living wage because of single status and equal pay. This is simply an excuse for inaction. The easiest way to implement is by collapsing increments at the bottom of the scale as in NHS Scotland. While this may impact on differentials, it doesn't of itself create an equal pay claim. The other is by a top up payment that might create a theoretical equal pay claim. However, there is a Genuine Material Factor defence that can be objectively justified on several grounds.
Expanding the living wage to the voluntary and private sector can be done through procurement. Legal advice to government and councils has highlighted the risk of challenge under EU procurement rules. Again there are ways of addressing this following the example of London and other councils elsewhere in the UK.
Finally, all those giving evidence emphasised the importance of establishing a Living Wage Unit. It could promote the living wage, give advice on the perceived barriers and provide practical support to public and private sector bodies that recognise the value the living wage brings to their organisation and the wider economy.
In all a very good evidence session and I hope the committee brings forward some positive recommendations.
It can be argued that there has been a greater focus in recent years on tackling poverty in families with children and older people than those at work. The living wage is a key element in tackling poverty for those at work and the Scottish Living Wage Campaign has been at the forefront of efforts to extend this concept in Scotland.
The living wage is intended to provide a level of pay that adequately allows workers to provide for themselves and their families. The current rate in Scotland is £7.20 per hour. This is paid to staff in the direct employment of the Scottish Government including the NHS. Seven local authorities have adopted the Scottish Living Wage, most notably Glasgow that has also encouraged a wider take up in the city.
This still leaves 18,432 workers (7%) in local councils who are paid below the living wage. There are also around 350,000 workers in Scotland earning below this level including many in the private and voluntary sector who provide public services. For this reason the committee focused in my panel on how we can expand the coverage of living wage.
Some local authorities claim they can't implement the living wage because of single status and equal pay. This is simply an excuse for inaction. The easiest way to implement is by collapsing increments at the bottom of the scale as in NHS Scotland. While this may impact on differentials, it doesn't of itself create an equal pay claim. The other is by a top up payment that might create a theoretical equal pay claim. However, there is a Genuine Material Factor defence that can be objectively justified on several grounds.
Expanding the living wage to the voluntary and private sector can be done through procurement. Legal advice to government and councils has highlighted the risk of challenge under EU procurement rules. Again there are ways of addressing this following the example of London and other councils elsewhere in the UK.
Finally, all those giving evidence emphasised the importance of establishing a Living Wage Unit. It could promote the living wage, give advice on the perceived barriers and provide practical support to public and private sector bodies that recognise the value the living wage brings to their organisation and the wider economy.
In all a very good evidence session and I hope the committee brings forward some positive recommendations.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Scotland and human rights
Last week I attended a lecture and dinner with Shami Chakribarti, Director of Liberty, at the University of Edinburgh. Her theme was 'A man's a man for a'that - Scotland and the Human Rights Act.
Her main point was that it's easy to sentimentalise Scottish, British or "western values" as if they always came easily or as if people around the world don't also strive for dignity, equal treatment and fairness. At a time when many at Westminster seek to replace universal "human rights" with "British rights" or citizens' privileges, she encouraged Scotland not to follow this trend. In this shrinking interconnected world, we should not choose to be citizens somewhere but rather human beings everywhere.
A key target for her concern was the proposed Bill of Rights for the UK, as against the universal rights that were developed after the carnage of the Second World War. She highlighted three specific concerns:
I am not convinced that Scots necessarily take a more positive view than the rest of the UK and I illustrated this with some examples from my own experience of anti-racism work. However, I do believe that we can win the argument that Scots are human beings before we are citizens.
Shami did touch on some topical Scottish issues. A concern that the benign Scottish influence over human rights might be lost if Scotland became independent. Either way she hoped we would support human rights not Scottish rights, whatever our constitutional future. She also warned against 'dangerously broad' definitions of speech offences in the proposed football offences legislation. She accepted that the objectives of the Bill are laudable, but experience of speech offences is that they must be closely defined. The broad anti-terrorist legislation provisions of 'glorifying terrorism' as against the clearer incitement to murder or racial hatred.
The evening was a timely reminder for me of the importance of our human rights framework. Human rights standards and principles apply to each of us equally. Compliance with these rights should be mainstreamed in the design and delivery of public services. they can be used as a tool to argue for better and fairer services. The work of the Liberty and the Human Rights Consortium Scotland in highlighting these issues deserves support.
Her main point was that it's easy to sentimentalise Scottish, British or "western values" as if they always came easily or as if people around the world don't also strive for dignity, equal treatment and fairness. At a time when many at Westminster seek to replace universal "human rights" with "British rights" or citizens' privileges, she encouraged Scotland not to follow this trend. In this shrinking interconnected world, we should not choose to be citizens somewhere but rather human beings everywhere.
A key target for her concern was the proposed Bill of Rights for the UK, as against the universal rights that were developed after the carnage of the Second World War. She highlighted three specific concerns:
- Attacks on the European Court of Justice in decisions such a prisoner voting. These attacks fail to understand that the ECHR is now integrated into our system of justice. Not forgetting the irony of attacks on judges from those who preach the rule of law to others.
- Judges overturning the decisions of elected representatives. Most democratic states recognise that there have to be underpinning rights that protect people against arbitrary law making. Those advocating a Bill of Rights should also recognise that in jurisdictions that adopt this model, judges tend to be much more interventionist and powerful.
- That we risk only giving legal rights to the 'worthy citizen' as against the principle of equal treatment. Deportation and immigration cases illustrate this point well.
I am not convinced that Scots necessarily take a more positive view than the rest of the UK and I illustrated this with some examples from my own experience of anti-racism work. However, I do believe that we can win the argument that Scots are human beings before we are citizens.
Shami did touch on some topical Scottish issues. A concern that the benign Scottish influence over human rights might be lost if Scotland became independent. Either way she hoped we would support human rights not Scottish rights, whatever our constitutional future. She also warned against 'dangerously broad' definitions of speech offences in the proposed football offences legislation. She accepted that the objectives of the Bill are laudable, but experience of speech offences is that they must be closely defined. The broad anti-terrorist legislation provisions of 'glorifying terrorism' as against the clearer incitement to murder or racial hatred.
The evening was a timely reminder for me of the importance of our human rights framework. Human rights standards and principles apply to each of us equally. Compliance with these rights should be mainstreamed in the design and delivery of public services. they can be used as a tool to argue for better and fairer services. The work of the Liberty and the Human Rights Consortium Scotland in highlighting these issues deserves support.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Politics of the pensions dispute
Last month I posted some reflections on the politics of the current pension dispute. After yesterday's historic strike I believe some update is warranted.
The ConDems got themselves in a guddle from the outset. Firstly, we were told the strike will ruin the economy costing £500m and then it was all a damp squib. Self evidently both cannot be correct. Of course it was only a damp squib if you view the world from the No.10 bunker or your normal social circle of bankers and hedge fund managers. For those in the real world it was an amazing day of protest for pensions justice, as the pictures alone show so clearly. The Autumn Statement the day before just added fuel to the fire.
For the SNP they started with a clear political strategy that deftly avoided the Scottish pensions tax for staff in the LGPS (Scotland) when it became clear there were no Barnett consequentials. They could have used some of the additional £675m efficiency savings to offset the consequentials from the NHS and other schemes. However, they made the political judgement that this money could be better used elsewhere, with the big added advantage of being able to blame Westminster. It will all be fine when we are independent. Treasury 'cash grab' was the soundbite, we actually used this first, but that's fine because that's exactly what it is.
So far so good until Labour MSPs decided to oppose business in Parliament on the Day of Action. The SNP then made a poor tactical decision to hold another debate on pensions (they had one only 10 days before) that meant crossing picket lines. John Swinney, I suspect unintentionally, gave the impression that he was boasting that he crossed a picket line. Then very awkward pictures for the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament picket line. This all went down badly and at the Glasgow rally, when that picture went up, he was loudly booed by most of the 2000+ people present. A rare experience for the normally politically astute FM.
Trade unions broadly welcome the Scottish Government's support for the campaign, but yesterday was about solidarity on the streets and picket lines, not posturing as part of a referendum strategy. A number of mainly West of Scotland SNP MSPs would understand that, but other colleagues clearly didn't.
As for Labour. Well at UK level they started by falling back into the New Labour trap of worrying about being associated with strikes. They just didn't get the scale of this strike and as a consequence sounded like Kenny Dalglish on a bad day - maybe yes, maybe no. In fairness, Ed Miliband redeemed himself somewhat at Prime Minister's Questions.
Scottish Labour generally played a blinder. Ian Gray's measured arguments in favour of showing solidarity went down well on the media and with those taking action. He was supported by many MSP's on picket lines and rallies. Yes, of course the Labour Leadership candidates had an interest in attracting votes, but they didn't make the judgement call. Most of them simply reflected the mood of the Party.
So, the scores at the end of the day. ConDem's nil - didn't even try. SNP 1, for getting the principle but let down by poor tactics. Scottish Labour, full marks for not only making the case, but for being out there showing solidarity when it matters.
The ConDems got themselves in a guddle from the outset. Firstly, we were told the strike will ruin the economy costing £500m and then it was all a damp squib. Self evidently both cannot be correct. Of course it was only a damp squib if you view the world from the No.10 bunker or your normal social circle of bankers and hedge fund managers. For those in the real world it was an amazing day of protest for pensions justice, as the pictures alone show so clearly. The Autumn Statement the day before just added fuel to the fire.
For the SNP they started with a clear political strategy that deftly avoided the Scottish pensions tax for staff in the LGPS (Scotland) when it became clear there were no Barnett consequentials. They could have used some of the additional £675m efficiency savings to offset the consequentials from the NHS and other schemes. However, they made the political judgement that this money could be better used elsewhere, with the big added advantage of being able to blame Westminster. It will all be fine when we are independent. Treasury 'cash grab' was the soundbite, we actually used this first, but that's fine because that's exactly what it is.
So far so good until Labour MSPs decided to oppose business in Parliament on the Day of Action. The SNP then made a poor tactical decision to hold another debate on pensions (they had one only 10 days before) that meant crossing picket lines. John Swinney, I suspect unintentionally, gave the impression that he was boasting that he crossed a picket line. Then very awkward pictures for the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament picket line. This all went down badly and at the Glasgow rally, when that picture went up, he was loudly booed by most of the 2000+ people present. A rare experience for the normally politically astute FM.
Trade unions broadly welcome the Scottish Government's support for the campaign, but yesterday was about solidarity on the streets and picket lines, not posturing as part of a referendum strategy. A number of mainly West of Scotland SNP MSPs would understand that, but other colleagues clearly didn't.
As for Labour. Well at UK level they started by falling back into the New Labour trap of worrying about being associated with strikes. They just didn't get the scale of this strike and as a consequence sounded like Kenny Dalglish on a bad day - maybe yes, maybe no. In fairness, Ed Miliband redeemed himself somewhat at Prime Minister's Questions.
Scottish Labour generally played a blinder. Ian Gray's measured arguments in favour of showing solidarity went down well on the media and with those taking action. He was supported by many MSP's on picket lines and rallies. Yes, of course the Labour Leadership candidates had an interest in attracting votes, but they didn't make the judgement call. Most of them simply reflected the mood of the Party.
So, the scores at the end of the day. ConDem's nil - didn't even try. SNP 1, for getting the principle but let down by poor tactics. Scottish Labour, full marks for not only making the case, but for being out there showing solidarity when it matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)