What Kind of Will is the Will of the Commons?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Asylum Bill and the House of Lords:
What Kind of Will is the Will of the Commons?

60,000 Further Education Staff Strike

Top-up Fees Yet Again

"Why we all should chase a dream":
New Labour's Nightmare Vision for Education

CAFOD: War on Iraq Would Shame the World

BP Demands Share of Iraq's Oil Reserves

Asked last Wednesday, shortly before Parliament was prorogued, if there were likely to be any further concessions on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Official Spokesman of the Prime Minister said that the government had already listened to the arguments which had been made in both the Lords and the Commons and had amended the Bill to take account of concerns which had been raised.

Listing the changes, he said that the language on the so-called "Henry VIII Order" had been changed for the avoidance of any doubt. There had also been a change to the language on serious criminals. On accommodation centres, the government had agreed to trial one centre with 500 beds. This, he said, showed that the government had taken account of – and recognised – areas of concern which had been raised by Peers and backbenchers and had sought to address them by building in safeguards and measures which it believed provided people with the necessary reassurance without diluting the fundamental principles of the Bill. The Bill was currently back before the Lords and the government hoped that they would now "listen to the will of the Commons".

The Spokesman went on to say that it was now for the Lords to reach its judgement on the Bill again. The government hoped that the Lords would acknowledge that "we had, as part of the democratic process, listened to the concerns, which had been raised".

It is a consistent argument of the government that the "democratic process" relies on the "will of the Commons", and that the delaying and amending function of the House of Lords must not be pushed too far. The government has made reform to the House of Lords to remove hereditary peers a central plank of its programme and use its own political patronage to appoint members of the Lords. Yet it is still in difficulties over opposition to legislation which goes against the public interest.

In this light, there arises the question of what the function of a second chamber is, especially if the aspect of the system of "representative democracy" which the doctrine of "checks and balances" represents is increasingly viewed by the Executive as anti-democratic. If even this doctrine is to be overturned and all the Lords should do is "listen to the will of the Commons", then it must be seriously asked also what kind of will is this "will of the Commons"?

Besides on the issue of the Asylum Bill, it has, for example, been raised this year in connection with the Hunting Bill. The Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) has suggested that for "many backbenchers the presence of an unelected body obstructing the will of the Commons was an anachronism, an affront to democracy".

It is well known how the Labour Party position on the House of Lords has altered since its manifesto of 1983 said: "We shall take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of Parliament to remove its legislative powers – with the exception of those which relate to the life of a Parliament." Labour abandoned its abolitionist stance at the 1992 general election, proposing reform instead. In his John Smith Memorial lecture in February 1996 Tony Blair advocated a two-stage reform, first the removal of hereditary peers and second a comprehensive reform of both composition and powers. Viscount Cranborne, the Conservative leader of the Lords, argued that to remove the hereditary peerage without any clearly defined idea of what would ultimately take its place was wrong and that a purely nominated Chamber would be far less independent of the Government than the mix of hereditary and life peers. Labour in government, after implementing its first stage of Lords reform in 1999, published a White Paper "The House of Lords, Completing the Reform" in November 2001. This proposed a largely appointed House, with 120 elected members. The White Paper attracted widespread criticism during its consultation period, which ended on January 31, 2002, particularly in terms of the low proportion of elected members.

On the face of it, the argument has been that the "popular will of the people, as expressed by the democratically elected House of Commons, should not be obstructed by an unelected House of Lords". Or, in the terms of the Parliament Act of 1949, in the case of an impasse between the two Houses, this legislation provides for the "will of the Commons" to take precedence after one year's delay.

The difficulties over the Asylum Bill reflect, among other things, that this conception of the "will of the Commons" is itself facing further crisis. This is because the power of the Executive, as embodied in Cabinet armed with the Royal Prerogative, is increasing, and indeed it is widely perceived that the Prime Minister is gathering more power in his own hands. In this situation, the "will of the Commons" cannot be equated with the will of the legislature. It could only be equated in this way if the participation of elected representatives were ensured in formulating this will, rather than the function of legislature being merely a rubber stamp for legislation and policies put forward by government.

But the argument that the "will of the Commons" represents the "popular will of the people, as expressed by the democratically elected House of Commons" is also increasingly untenable. This has come sharply into focus, for example, in the unbending drive of Tony Blair and the government to go to war against Iraq, irrespective of public opinion. Indeed, the issue that increasingly requires resolution is how the popular will can be genuinely expressed in a representative assembly.

Constituency committees are needed at the workplaces, educational institutions and in the community to bring to power representatives of the workers and other sections of the people who represent their interests. A Workers' Opposition needs to be built inside and outside parliament to represent the voice of the workers and the programme of the working class, which includes defending the rights of all. The government's constitutional reforms are in contrast designed to put in place arrangements which further marginalise the role of working people as concerns decision-making. They are a step even further away from ensuring that progressive and enlightened positions are taken by government, representing the public interest and the concerns of the people.

Sixty thousand Further Education college staff, including cleaners, technicians, support staff and lecturers went on strike in England last Tuesday, November 5, in their struggle to end their low pay and achieve parity with other public sector workers. The strike, which involved members of NATFHE, Unison and the ATL, was described as a "terrific success", closing as it did up to 40 and affecting another 200 of England's 400 Further Education colleges. Picket lines were mounted at most colleges and major rallies took place in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Norwich, Newcastle and Bristol. The overwhelming support for the strike underlined the strong rejection by FE staff of the current pay offer of 2.3%.

The underlying cause of the problem of low pay in FE is the government underfunding of the sector. Since FE colleges were separated from local education authorities and incorporated in 1993, investment in Further Education has consistently declined. The college managers' organisation the AoC has put the blame for the present crisis in funding FE at the door of the government. An AoC representative called on the government to provide more funding for the FE sector to enable parity of pay between those working in schools and FE colleges to be achieved. Recently, the Welsh Assembly agreed to a deal which would see FE lecturers achieve parity with schoolteachers in Wales by 2005. As a result, there was no strike action in Wales.

The lecturers' union NATFHE has warned that unless something is done to address the problem of low pay in FE in England, there will be further strikes.

by Workers' Weekly Youth Group Correspondent

Once again, we hear reports that the government is "reconsidering" the introductions of so-called top-up fees. Time after time, students and many other people have opposed such plans, and time after time, the government has had to back down. But they are pushing the issue once more.

According to the BBC, "ministers are said to be looking closely at the idea of freeing universities to impose extra fees on students to help pay for an expansion in student numbers."

Universities are reportedly divided over the issue: Edinburgh and Glasgow are publicly opposed to the idea, whereas others are already making plans. Still others prefer to remain silent, waiting to see what the government recommends in its review of student funding, now delayed until January. Six of the "élite" Russell Group of 19 universities are discussing plans for a joint approach to top-up fees, according to reports, though cannot agree on fee levels at present. These universities are Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London, University College London, Warwick and Nottingham.

Cambridge is understood to have suggested fees of about £3,000 a year. Oxford wants to charge between £7,000 and £8,000. Imperial College is making plans to charge students at least £10,500, whereas University College London wants to charge about £7,000 and Warwick £6,000, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement.

NATFHE union's Tom Wilson is reported as saying: "It’s a debate which is being hi-jacked by a few loud mouths.

"The vast majority are strongly opposed to this. There is a bit of game-playing going on because in a month's time the government will announce how much money universities will get for the next three years.

"It’s a crude and damaging threat. It’s attempted blackmail."

Paul Cottrell, the assistant general secretary of the Association of University Teachers (AUT), is quoted saying: "Some of the vice chancellors are very serious about it (top-up fees) and will push and push until they get it. They insist they will go private if they don’t get it.

"There are vice-chancellors who are strongly opposed to it and others who might be in favour, but not in favour of a free-for-all.

"It’s an appalling situation. There is a range of views among institutions, which makes it difficult to present a coherent approach to government."

The contradiction is that universities are under pressure to accept more students from poorer families. The stated aim of the government is to get 50% of people under 30 into some form of higher education by 2010. However, the burden is being put onto the universities to do this: they need more investment to support this expansion and say they are slowly going bankrupt because the funding they receive per student does not meet their costs.

Many commentators have pointed out that the government promised not to introduce higher fees as part of its election manifesto. However, the government refuses to comment on whether this would last beyond this Parliament. Indeed, the new Education Secretary Charles Clarke told the BBC's Newsnight programme that higher fees were "still very relevant".

The rhetoric will not wash: the "rekindling of the debate" is clearly seen by students as part of the government’s programme to make education a source of profit for monopolies. Tuition fees, the creation of a two-tier system, the restructuring of the universities, the gearing of research to industrial needs, university mergers and monopolisation of higher education, are all parts and symptoms of this disastrous "Third Way" programme.

Reproduced from North East Workers & Politics, Vol.2 No.13, November 6, 2002

On October 29, 2002 an article by David Miliband MP, Schools Standards Minister, was featured in the North East Journal newspaper's education supplement. The article was entitled "Why we all should chase a dream". The author addresses the dream in the introduction when he says "education is vital to developing the region's potential and if we can get education right, by making the investments and supporting the teachers, we will have a real chance of reversing economic decline, improving the quality of life and strengthening communities". But the fact that the dream David Miliband is still chasing is really New Labour's nightmare vision is revealed if the reader happens to know the reality and if one is fully woken up to the facts. Schools, universities and colleges are all suffering massive cutbacks on all fronts. Whether it be the take-over of new schools for profit under PFI by the private sector, the worsening conditions and pay of teachers and lecturers, the increasing of fees to students, introduction of top-up fees, and so on. Even in David Miliband's own South Shields constituency, so far, the schools standards Minister has yet to take a stand against the proposed closure of sixteen junior schools and nurseries. Many of these schools belong to the poorest communities in the borough where the people consider these schools and nurseries to be at the heart of their own communities and do not think that their "quality of life is strengthening" when they are having to fight these proposed closures.

Undeterred by this thought, David Miliband then addresses himself to the question that "education remains the number one goal for the government in its second term". What is key in this, he explains is the "reform of the secondary level". And this means the government is "expanding specialist schools and the city academies, not giving up on the comprehensive principle, but modernising it so that it effectively serves the people who matter most – the pupils". He identifies the problem that a significant number of young people "turn off education between 11 and 14, but we also need to tackle the culture of pupils leaving school at 16, making sure they've got the skills that employers need".

Having in one sentence said who matters most – the pupils – David Miliband in the next sentence reveals this modernisation has nothing to do with the needs of the pupils and raising their level of education but is about "making sure that they have got the skills that employers need". Elaborating this point that the pupils must develop the skills that employers need he advocates that if the curriculum on offer is "more vocational, broader and practical, then it is more likely that young people will be enthusiastic about staying within education". He tries to clinch his self-serving argument by saying that "we must emphasise that learning is not uncool but something that will help them live their dreams" and "its important we remember that education doesn't just belong in the class room". He then goes on to argue for improvement in adult education emphasising only literacy and numeracy skills.

His words come at a time when the government is cutting back in general adult education and focusing the remaining resources on numeracy and literacy skill directly linked to the interests of the employer. So, according to the School Standards Minister, the youth will regain their enthusiasm to learn once the education system is in line with a curriculum that is "more vocational, broader and practical" and then an adult education system which concentrates on numeracy and literacy skills. In other words, the youth will "live their dreams" as long as they accept the status quo and remain marginalised. New Labour's vision is that education at school and afterwards must gear itself to a low wage mass unemployment economy, where workers get behind their employers in the global market, where people learn to accept that job security is a thing of the past and that they must switch in an out of work according to the needs of these employers who will come and go to make maximum profits out of what they produce, or what services they provide.

A modern education system, if it is to be progressive, must not narrow down education to a vocational level but must prepare the youth and adults with a broad understanding and scientific outlook towards the present day world. Education should enlighten people about the world and present day events and their history. Education should enable people so that they can better stand up for their rights and interests, and the rights and interests of the collectives to which they belong, in a world of global monopolies and cuts in social spending and public services and a world that is being plunged into war by the big powers. The youth need education that raises their level so that they can think and act for themselves and start to end their marginalisation from decision making in society so they can fully participate in society and change how it is run and how it is organised. Education is a right and society must raise the level of the education of the youth and all in society so that they are equipped to play their part in the fight to humanise society and the environment.

CAFOD, the Catholic Aid Agency, based in Stockwell, South London, has said that from a humanitarian perspective a war against Iraq would be a catastrophe that would bring shame on the world community.

A report published on November 1, "On the Brink of War: A Recipe for a Humanitarian Disaster", states that war must be avoided at all costs and a peaceful solution found to the dispute over weapons of mass destruction.

The publication of the report follows a visit to Iraq by a delegation from Caritas Internationalis, the world-wide Catholic network of aid agencies, led by CAFOD's Director, Julian Filochowski.

"Bombing and invasion would exact a terrible toll far worse than the Gulf War of 1991. This is not only because the bombing and fighting will inevitably focus on urban populated areas, especially Baghdad, but because the recovery of the people from the Gulf War is still so fragile. The horrendous burden of twelve years of sanctions and trade embargo has left the people highly vulnerable," Julian. Filochowski said on his return.

The report says that between 14 and 16 million people – two thirds of the Iraqi population – are totally dependent on the monthly food ration distribution; and the country's health service and the patched-up electricity and water systems are still inadequate because of economic sanctions.

It highlights the fact that estimates for civilian deaths range from a rather conservative figure of 10,000 to estimates of more than 10 times that figure depending on the scenario.

"Precision bombing however skilful has a margin of error and in populated areas, if even five per cent of the missiles to be dropped in the first days of bombing go astray, and each kills and maims, then the casualties will mount very fast, especially when indirect deaths, from disease or as a result of the expected huge displacement of populations to refugee camps, are taken into account.

"For the two thirds of the population dependent on the UN food rations there are few if any coping mechanisms once the food distributions are disrupted and water and sanitation systems collapse", Julian. Filochowski said.

"In the end a war on Iraq will be devastating for the Iraqi people. They can never be considered collateral damage to a greater cause, when we are well aware of the full and terrible consequences of military action," he added.

The delegation saw a disturbing picture of the suffering of what was once a prosperous nation that has been systematically de-developed and deskilled. Its people, at once vulnerable and resilient, continually struggle to assert their dignity even under the threat of invasion.

"Ordinary people are frightened, aware that the prospect of military action is hanging over them like the sword of Damocles. War and rumours of war have a deep psychological impact on all people. While in Iraq delegation members heard about people selling off possessions to raise cash, buying in stores of food and fuel and wondering where they can find a safe place for their children, not knowing what next month will bring. Whatever their grievances or suffering the Iraqi people do not want war; it is simply untrue that any kind of war is welcome to them," Julian. Filochowski said.

The report concludes: "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has already suffered so much. It would be difficult to imagine a single, more effective way of wreaking devastation on an already devastated country and creating a major humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims."

CARITAS Internationalis is planning to assist its local partner, Caritas Iraq, to prepare its 13 nutrition centres across Iraq to operate as first aid posts to help deal with casualties in the event of bombing

The Guardian newspaper reported on October 30 that Lord Browne, the chief executive of BP, who has close links with the present British government, has issued a warning to the US administration not to share out Iraq's oil resources to the US oil giants and exclude the European oil monopolies. Speaking at a briefing on BP's results, Lord Browne is reported to have said, "We have let it be known that the thing we would like to make sure, if Iraq changes regime (!), is that there should be a level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there…" Analysts note that Iraq's oil reserves are estimated to be the second largest in the world after those of Saudi Arabia.