A new democratic society, fit for the 21st century

Westminster palace is crumbling into the Thames and suffering from years of neglect. The lowest estimate for the repair bill is £5.7billion, but we all know how accurate the government have been in estimating costs before, the millennium dome and Olympics being good examples. Some say parliament should move to a more central location while the repairs are being carried out, while others say the move should be more permanent. It has been suggested that the building should be sold and that carries a certain amount of credibility, given our governments appetite for selling off our public assets and the building could be opened as a national museum after the repairs have been carried out. But whatever the outcome, it is not only the home of our politics that is broken. Our entire political system is fundamentally broken and unfit for a 21^st century democracy. Lack of trust and confidence in not only our politicians, but also our entire political system have never been higher.

We have now reached a stage where one third of those eligible to vote do not because they simply do not believe it will make any difference. Politicians refuse to tell the electorate anymore than a few sound bites about what their policies are during a general election campaign. Multi national corporations and accountants are writing our tax laws, rather than civil servants. Our tax collector are handing out cushy deals to multi national corporations and cannot be held to account, because they aren’t even accountable to parliament. Our government deny they have an agenda to privatise our NHS, yet another £1billion deal to provide back office services in GP surgeries was handed to a corporation this week. For all but a minority, the dream of owning our own home is now far out of reach due to rising house prices and stagnant wages. In the nation with the sixth richest economy in the world, we have 13.7million people living in poverty and our governments’ plans are to cut in work benefits, which will drive even more families into poverty. An estimated 250,000 people marched the streets of London last weekend, protesting the governments’ austerity program and in response our chancellor announced scant details about his plans to cut a further £12billion from the welfare bill.

The truth is our government are not listening to the people and have no intention of abandoning their ideologically driven agenda. Marching in protest has it’s place, but things have gone too far now and the government are not listening anyway. If we want to make a fairer more democratic society, we need something much more radical. Successive governments’ have proven they are neither willing nor able to deliver the kind of society we all want. What we need is to write the rulebook in a new constitution and one way to achieve that is through a peoples convention on the constitution. In order to stimulate interest we could hold a national event and call it something like crowdsourcing towards a citizens convention on the constitution. Open the event to people from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. A mass get together where there would be keynote speakers in the morning speaking on topics such as what is a constitution? What is the British constitution? Our membership of the EU & democracy, are they compatible? We could have a question and answer session after each keynote speaker. Then in the afternoon we could break up into facilitated workshops, with topics such as What should be in a constitution? What are the different models of democracy? Why do we want a constitution?

The event would be about empowering people with information and knowledge in order to enable them to come together and produce the first ever written British constitution. By the end of the event, people would feel empowered and we would call for a second event, a citizens convention on the new constitution. At the convention, we could have workshops where people would be divided up, with those in each workshop working on writing a specific section of the new constitution. Facilitators would be on hand to help and guide the groups, but it would be the people doing the actual writing. At the end, the different sections would be combined to create the first ever written constitution. It would be real people power in action. Citizens taking control and coming together to design a new British democracy for the 21^st century. A fairer, more equal and more democratic society in which we would all want to live. Where we, rather than multi national corporations make decisions that effect our everyday lives. A society where our politicians are truly accountable to us and no longer bow to the wishes of corporations and their lobbyists. The type of society that will ensure we have adequate housing for everyone, that does not allow any one of us to ever fall into poverty. We will decide the rate of tax payable by corporations, as well as the terms and conditions under which they are allowed to trade in Britain. Everyone, regardless of their position in society will be equal in the eyes of the law and face the same consequences of breaking the law.

Assemblies for democracy are already leading that movement and have started making steps towards an international event in 2016. So I call on everyone to check the Assemblies for democracy website and if there is not already an assembly in your local area, contact them and they will help you to start one. Many other attempts at achieving what we want have been made in different ways and have not been successful. I believe it is only through a radical movement of people coming together in order to create what we want, that our dreams will ever be realised. So let us join together and create a better, fairer and more democratic Great Britain.

Who do they think they are?

In 2010, just after the coalition government had been sworn in both George Osborne and David Cameron told us of the austerity measures that were to come. “There is no alternative” they cried, which of course we now know was not true. As if to offer us some kind of comfort they declared “we’re all in it together” also not true. The first thing George Osborne did was hike the rate of VAT up, from 17.5% to 20% and then gave a tax break to high income earners by reducing the top rate of tax, which is payable only by those earning more than £150,000 per year from 45% to 40%. He also imposed a pay freeze for five years on all public sector workers, which will now in all likelihood last until 2020.

Fast forward 3 years and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) who are responsible for MP’s pay, benefits and expenses announce a cut in MP’s benefits, but a pay rise of £7,000 or 10% to compensate for their loss. While there was widespread support for the reform of MP’s over generous pensions and tightening of the rules on what can and cannot be claimed for in expenses, there was equally strong objection to the proposed pay rise for MP’s. The announcement from IPSA came despite their own public  consultation indicating that 88% of respondents were opposed to the pay rise. Even David Cameron called for IPSA to reconsider. Despite a further two reviews, IPSA have announced that unless they receive compelling evidence against the pay rise it will go ahead as from 30^th June and be backdated to April.

I wonder just how out of touch with reality does an independent body have to be to grant a pay award to MP’s at a time with the whole of the nation are suffering our governments’ austerity measures. IPSA claims that MP’s salary is below the average of others working in the public sector. However in 2014 the average salary in Britain was £26,500 per year. Even in the top decile of earners, the average annual salary is £60,500. MP’s currently earn £67,070, which is substantially more than the vast majority of people in Britain. What more compelling evidence could IPSA want than the fact that 88% of people have declared their objections? While some have stated their support for the pay rise, other MP’s have publically condemned it including John Mann and Nicky Morgan.

As if rubbing salt in the wound, IPSA also say that after the pay award, MP’s salaries will be linked to average earnings increases. Using predictions from the Office for Budget Responsibility, MP’s salaries would rise from £67,070 to almost £86,000 by 2019. The Independent Pay Review Body (IPRB) recommended a measly 1% pay rise for all NHS staff last year, but it was rejected by MP’s, so why can’t this recommendation from IPSA be rejected in the same way? The answer is simple. It’s because the vast majority of MP’s welcome the proposal, despite the public objections of a few. David Cameron would see his annual salary rise from £142,000 to £154,000 and as his pension is tied to his final salary, of course he wants the rise also, regardless of what he says in public. The fact is MP’s could block this pay rise in a heartbeat, but they don’t want to. Instead they blame the “independent” body IPSA and make a few noises of objection in public. But the truth is the vast majority want this pay rise to go ahead.

I am well aware there are a number of MP’s who work very hard to represent their constituents and if there is a pay rise on offer, they deserve it. However, over the past few years we have heard of a number of MP’s getting up to all sorts. In 2009 we found out that some of them had been stealing from us, while many others were bending the rules for their own financial gain. We have had numerous scandals where MP’s were caught offering access to senior ministers in return for large donations to their political party, cash for access, cash for questions and MP’s offering to lobby in parliament on behalf of private international corporations. Although nothing has yet been proven, allegations are rife about a Westminster paedophile ring, including current politicians. There have also been allegations of governments having acted to cover up and protect MP’s. Most recently we have had an MP eventually admit he had lied about leaking an untruthful article regarding SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and one MP in an attempt to defend the accused declared that the House of Commons would empty very quickly if all MP’s who lie were sacked.

We have endured cuts to social care that have meant some elderly people are unable to leave their home, have a daily wash and get dressed. Welfare support for the most vulnerable and disabled in our society has been slashed. People are being forced to represent themselves in court against highly paid and well qualified legal experts because of cuts to the legal aid budget. People are being forced to take on low paid work, just to have some money coming in. More than 1million others are depending on food banks just to feed their families. Another 3.5million people are starving themselves so their children can eat and right here in Britain, the nation with the sixth richest economy in the world, we have 4.1million children living in poverty.

Meanwhile, our MP’s are to receive a 10% pay increase. What kind of democracy is that?

I do not begrudge anyone who works hard and does a good job a decent salary. So I suggest that MP’s pay be set by their constituents and linked to performance. As it is in the vast majority of jobs in the private sector, we could have a set of pay scales drawn up, ranging from the lowest which would be base pay to the highest representing an MP whom their constituents felt had outperformed their expectations of them. This would provide a strong incentive for MP’s to work hard for their constituents and act in the interests of those they were elected to serve. Equally, it would build a stronger relationship between constituents and MP’s, who would have to spend more time meeting and getting to know the concerns of their constituents. Inevitably, MP’s who do not serve well or meet the needs of their constituents would see this poor performance reflected in their salary. This system is exactly how the vast majority of workers salaries are decided and it is how we should be deciding our MP’s salary. Handing control of MP’s salary to those they work for would be fairer and more democratic.

This is how it would be done in a true democracy.

Bung us 40million francs and we’ll say no more about it

The hopes of millions of people across Europe, that Switzerland would join the tiny number of countries taking legal action against HSBC (Swiss) for money laundering were dashed today when Geneva’s chief prosecutor Olivier Jornot announced that a financial settlement of 40million Swiss francs (£28million) had been reached and that the Swiss authorities would be taking no further action against the bank.  The bank was under investigation for money laundering, following when UK channel 4’s dispatches program made public information that the Swiss arm of British bank HSBC had been assisting individuals to hide money from their national tax authorities. The information originally came to light when IT specialist Herve Falciani who was working at the bank in Switzerland turned whistleblower and leaked details of some 106,000 private accounts at the bank.

In the UK, HMRC received the leaked files in 2010. Following the dispatches program in February, it was revealed by HMRC they had identified three thousand six hundred British nationals from the Falciani files, when they appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. Of those, two thousand five hundred were found to have done nothing wrong, as it is not illegal to hold a private bank account in a foreign country. All but one of the remaining one thousand one hundred British citizens, were allowed to pay the outstanding tax plus a small financial penalty of 10% and that was the end of the matter. That means one thousand and ninety nine British individuals were caught red handed evading tax, which by the way is illegal in Britain and not one of them were prosecuted. HMRC claim to have collected £135million in unpaid taxes and penalties. The one individual HMRC did prosecute was found guilty of tax evasion in the amount of £387,103 and was ordered to pay an additional £469,444 in fines and legal costs. Tens of millions in tax evaded and not a single person spent even one day in jail.

It was through a tax amnesty agreement between the British tax authority and tax authority in Lichtenstein that the one thousand and ninety nine individuals were allowed to make financial settlements. The Lichtenstein agreement was set up in 2009 so that British nationals who held financial assets there could declare them to HMRC without facing prosecution. However the agreement had some strict conditions in order for the amnesty to be offered. Firstly, the assets had to be held in Lichtenstein. Secondly, the amnesty could not be used where a criminal prosecution was likely. Thirdly, the claim could only  involve assets about which HMRC were not already aware and the disclosure had to be made voluntarily, without intervention from HMRC. But none of the assets were held in Lichtenstein. All of the individuals had committee tax evasion and therefore criminal prosecution should have been likely. HMRC had found out about the assets through the Falciani files and therefore already knew about all of the assets when the individuals were approached and therefore none of the disclosures had been made voluntarily. The favourable treatment available under this tax amnesty, should never have been given to any of the one thousand and ninety nine individuals concerned.

When giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, HMRC chief executive Lyn Homer said that half of these individuals had asked to be given amnesty from prosecution under the Lichtenstein agreement and were advised by HMRC to move their assets to Lichtenstein in order to qualify for the amnesty. The other half knew nothing about the Lichtenstein agreement, but were advised of it by HMRC staff and told to move their assets. This is not just giving out amnesties to tax evaders, it is advising breaking the rules by advising them of the amnesty and how to qualify. It was never the intention of parliament that those caught red handed evading taxes should be given an amnesty, so clearly HMRC are ignoring the will of parliament and applying the rules how and when they see fit. HMRC do not, nor should they ever be given the power to decide if and when the laws of the land are to be applied and when they can be ignored. Their sole remit is to collect the taxes that are due as determined by parliament.

Online campaign group Avaaz who have more than 40million members worldwide, have initiated judicial review proceedings against HMRC in relation to it’s decision to offer the amnesty.  Avaaz’s campaign director, Alex Wilks, said in a statement when the legal action was launched: “If the police extended the terms of knife amnesties to criminals caught carrying weapons, the public would be outraged. Tax officials must urgently explain why they gave get out of jail free cards to so many wealthy tax dodgers.” The difficulty with financial penalties is individuals who are caught evading taxes on this scale can well afford to pay the tax owed plus a small financial penalty, in the highly unlikely event of them being caught. Therefore financial penalties provide no incentive to change behaviours or to think about the consequences of what they are doing, aside from the fact it is illegal. As with the case of HSBC bank in Switzerland and the multiple fines imposed on UK banks in the past five years, financial penalties send out completely the wrong message to those actively and anyone considering participating in illegal behaviour. It says do as you please because even in the unlikely event you get caught, the worst that will happen is you will receive a fine.

Put these individuals or businesses on trial in a court of law and if found guilty, send them to jail for a substantial period of time. Then use the proceeds of crime act to seize all of their assets and reimburse the public purse. Prosecute a few cases in this way and word will spread like wildfire that there are serious consequences for breaking the law in Britain. Such actions will have the effect of focusing the minds of anyone considering illegal activity and it will be an effective punishment for those found guilty. They will think twice before carrying on with business as usual once released. Treating wealthy tax dodgers and banks who help them exactly the same as we treat an individual who over claims benefits they are not entitled to is exactly how things work in a truly democratic society.

It is also noteworthy here that because the Swiss authorities have decided to agree a financial settlement with the Swiss arm of HSBC, information they gained on exactly what the bank had been up to will never be made public. Also, despite authorities in France, Belgium and Argentina having brought charges of money laundering and fraud against HSBC bank, no such charges have ever been lodged against the bank in Britain. Finally, HMRC had powers at the time of the Falciani files case to impose financial penalties of up to 200% of the tax evaded, but it chose not to use them. What kind of democracy is this?

Our fundamental human rights are under attack

“The watchdog that would have scrutinised the end of the human rights act just got quietly scrapped” reads the article in the independent. Following a meeting of the wholly undemocratic system of party whips, it has been announced that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee which, was originally set up in 2010 and chaired by George Allan MP has been scrapped. The committee is a key area of democratic reform and in the period of the last parliament, played an important role in holding the government to account. It’s formation marked an important milestone in David Cameron’s commitment to reforming democracy in Britain.

With just a small majority in the House of Commons the tory government are facing some challenging times ahead over the period of the next parliament. Firstly there will be discussions and negotiations on the constitution, including devolution of powers to Scotland and Manchester. Surely that will lead to discussions on Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, following negotiations on Britain’s role in the European Union, we will have an in/out referendum on membership of the EU by the end of 2017. 

The government also have plans to redraw constituency boundaries in a way it has been suggested that would benefit the conservative party. It is also committed to a form of English votes for English laws. But most importantly, we have the commitment of the conservative party in their election manifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Given these fundamental changes, it is telling of the real commitment to democratic reform that the committee who would hold government to account and represent the will of the British people has been abolished.

In the period of the last parliament the committee was widely recognised has having carries out some excellent work and enjoyed unanimous support from conservative, labour, liberal democract & SDLP colleagues. It produced all party reports on English devolution, the need for a constitutional convention, parliamentary boundaries, the future for Scotland, improving the legislative process in parliament, a written constitution, voter disengagement, the gagging bill, electoral registration and many others.

Those responsibilities previously held by the committee will be divided up among other select committees with already full agendas. The cynic in me suggests our government does not want to be held to account and wonders what nasty surprises they are already planning for us over the period of this parliament. Disenchantment with politics and democracy, as well as the publics questioning of the legitimacy of government is at an all time high. 

Surely we need a select committee who will hold government to account and represent the views of the people they serve now more than ever. I will confess to not having much faith in the ability or willingness of MP’s to enabling real democratic change to our political system, as many have much to lose from meaningful democratic change. However I will concede that on the face of things, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee appear to have made some inroad in what will in all likelihood be a long struggle for real democracy.

The Human Rights Act is in effect the British domestication of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), allowing British courts to make rulings based on the original Convention. The ECHR is an agreement that all countries in Europe will respect human rights and was drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of the Second World War. It was spearheaded by Britain who was a founding signatory and ratified the convention in 1951.

The fundamental human rights that are protected by the act are:

✔ The right to life – protects your life by law. The state is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody

✔ The prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment – you should never be tortured or treated in an inhumane way or degrading way, no matter what the situation

✔ Protection against slavery and forced labour – you should never be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour

✔ The right to liberty and freedom – you have the right to be free and the state can only imprison you with very good reason e.g. if you are convicted of a crime

✔ The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law – you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law

✔ Respect for privacy and family life and to marry – protects against any unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You also have the right to marry and raise a family

 ✔ Freedom of thought, religion and belief – you can believe what you like and practice your beliefs

 ✔ Free speech and peaceful protest – you have the right to speak freely and join with others to express your views

✔ No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly because of your gender, race, sexuality, religion, age or disability

✔ Protection of property – protects against state interference against your property

✔ Right to an education – means that no child can be denied an education

✔ Right to free elections – elections must be free and fair

Very little is known about the conservative parties British Bill of Rights that would replace the Human Rights Act. In a document it published on the matter they outline that protecting fundamental human rights is the hallmark of a democratic society and is central to the values of the conservative party. They then go on to say that the present position under the ECHR and the HRA is not acceptable.

However Martin Howe QC produced a draft of the British bill and in it he proposes that the rights of any individual would depend on whether they were a British citizen (full fundamental rights), an EU national (fewer rights) or a foreigner (even fewer rights). Such an approach would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of human rights, being that every human being has the same basic rights.

There is also mounting opposition to the repeal of the Act among tory backbenchers. Former tory justice minister Ken Clarke and former attorney general Dominic Grieve have also publicly opposed the move, warning that it could undermine the rule of law and risks setting a dangerous precedent.