Earlier today, the House was debating the increase in world food prices. There were some interesting speeches, including from Lord Alton of Liverpool on the cross-benches. He touched upon the extent to which problems such as world poverty may be neglected when people in developed countries come under economic pressure. It is the enduring dilemma: are we only ethically responsible at times of economic well-being?
If we are doing well – rising salaries, low inflation, secure jobs – we can afford to buy fair-traded goods, free range eggs and organic produce, as well as switch to fuel-efficient cars and contribute to charities. But when there are spiralling fuel prices, more expensive items in the shops and economic uncertainty, are people willing to continue shopping ethically? Are we entitled to expect them to?
As parliamentarians, there is the danger that we may be insulated from much of this. MPs have good salaries (and pensions); many peers (though certainly not all) have outside jobs. This creates a problem for us. How far should we pursue an ethical agenda (increasing duty on inefficient cars, for example) and how far should we accommodate the needs of people who are finding it difficult to make ends meet?
Ethical responsibility is an approach, open to individual interpretation, to what is fair and unfair, a subject that is often hijacked by the elite or, worse, an excuse for a commercial or a political agenda.
To take one of your examples, paying £1 more for a box of eggs may reflect a concern for animal welfare, or the popular appeal of well-meaning celebrities beloved by the media. Though many will have an increased understanding of the ethical issues could they detect the difference between Yorkshire puddings made of free-range or battery eggs? Then we get into the elasticity of demand according to income. In essence, those used to a higher standard will cut back rather than reduce their standards, others will buy the same amount but of a cheaper and lesser standard. The unethical battery eggs win.
Another example is the government’s inept definition of an inefficient car. Living and trading in a rural area, I have calculated it is more efficient for me to make one journey in a 2 litre estate car with a decent plated weight to the cash and carry than several journeys in a phut-phut. In addition, the estate will last longer and further reduce the inefficiencies inherent with the production of a car. Here, the ethical choice loses out to a political agenda (though the Chancellor may yet do another U-turn).
I should also add that, like it or not, part of the taxes I pay is given to charities (some of who are most unethical) in a variety of ways, many of whom I do not regard as charities in the accepted sense. Both main parties have decided that ‘charities’ or as they prefer to call them, the Third Sector, is the way forward. I couldn’t agree less but that may be the better discussed in a separate post.
The House of Lords reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 is on Tuesday 8th July 2008, led by Lord (Alan) West of Spithead.
There has been very little mention of the clauses 64-65 of the bill, which contain the proposed measures for ‘secret inquests’ held without the presence of a jury and/or family members, and the use ‘special coroners’, selected by the government, for any inquests of the government’s choosing.
The UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (in their report of 30th January 2008) described the above proposals as _”an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK’s ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 ECHR – to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents.”_
Various legal groups have also commented on these proposed measures which, whilst being included within the Counter-Terrorism Bill, could have enormous ramifications for all, and could result in inquests into contentious deaths involving state agents taking place without juries, in private, with government-appointed coroners and counsel overseeing the evidence.
This is most certainly not in line with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights – ironic, as this is a reason that the Home Secretary cites for these proposed change to the Coroner/Inquest System!
Remember that no inquests for any of the July 7th victims have been completed as of yet, and these proposed rushed measures would remove the last chance for anything close to a independent inquiry/review of the circumstances of the deaths that occurred that day.
I hope that the Lords debate the ‘measures to hold inquests without a jury’, and send the rushed ill-considered Bill containing these draconian measures back to the House of Commons.
justin: I have little doubt that all provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill will be considered in detail in the Lords. As you say, it is receiving its Second Reading on Tuesday (8 July). There will be plenty of time to pore over its provisions before committee stage. The House rises for summer on 22 July and committee stage will not begin until October. The late ending of the session (with the Queen’s Speech on 3 December) means that there is time available to provide proper scrutiny. The fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has drawn attention to Clauses 64-65 will reinforce the intention to ensure that those clauses are thoroughly considered and, if necessary, amended or removed.
Lord Norton,
Many thanks for your reply.
You mention that the Lords committee stage will not begin until October 2008. Do you know if there will be a Lords vote on each of the amendment orders that were voted upon (but not passed) in the house of Commons, i.e.:
i) Extension of period of detention to 42 days;
ii) Certificate requiring inquest to be held without a jury: England and Wales; &
iii) Specially appointed coroners
Following the Lords vote, do you know when the (amended) legislation will return to the House of Commons? Is this likely to be in 2009?
Thank you in anticipation of your response.
Justin: All amendments that are tabled to Bills in the Lords are considered. We do not have provision for programme or guillotine motions, so debate on amendments cannot be curtailed. I have little doubt that there will be amendments tabled on each of the provisions you mention and it will then be open to the proposer of each to put the amendment to a vote. The Bill will go through the remaining stages (committee, report, third reading) after we return from the summer recess, and – if amended (as I suspect it will be) – it then returns to the Commons. If the Commons reject the Lords amendment(s), it then comes back to the Lords and there is the prospect of ‘ping pong’ between the two Houses. For the Bill to be enacted, both Houses have to reach agreement before the end of the session: in other words, before the end of November.
Incidentally, as you may know, it is possible to follow the passage of a Bill via the Parliament website. You can see not only the stages but also what amendments have been tabled. After the Bill’s Second Reading in the Lords tomorrow (8 July), it will be open to peers to begin to submit amendments in readiness for committee stage. You can see what amendments are tabled by going to ‘Bills and Legislation’ and then clicking on ‘Public Bills before Parliament’. In this case, you then click on the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
Our overseas aid budget is £5bn per annum, no matter which way you look at it, the is a huge amount of money. In difficult times all expenditure should be looked at and that must include areas such as overseas aid. As a people we are, I believe, the second most generous givers to charity after the USA.
We should not see our pensioners suffer the indignity of having to go cap in hand to the government for assistance to heat their homes, whilst we are spending £5bn per year in overseas aid. Much of which actually ends up in the hands of corrupt governments and we know very little about whether the rest of our money is spent or invested.
Like it or not, charity should begin at home. £5bn is too much even in a booming economy and it is certainly too much during an economic slump.
UK Voter: I was referring primarily to our ethical actions as individuals. Government spending clearly has a relevance in terms of our willingness to contribute to tackling disease and poverty overseas. Expressed in absolute terms, our aid budget appears large (and relative to other countries is generous): expressed as a proportion of public spending it is small.
Lord Norton: Agreed. However, in these difficult times most people will not be concentrating on ethical purchases, but economically viable ones. It is often, only the priviledged that can afford the luxury of making the distinction. My point was, and remains, that we already make a substantial ‘ethical’ contibution in terms of our overseas aid budget, a good proportion of which goes towards projects which allow those less fortunate to be self-sufficient and/or produce goods which can then be exported to first world countries (in particular ‘fair trade’ goods). The overseas aid budget is not all about combating poverty and disease, at least that is what we are told.
In term of free range and organic produce, I suspect that most people look at this in terms of what is perceived as healthy rather than what is ethical. We can kid ourselves that it is because it is ethical, but ask the average shopper why they buy free range or organic and they will tell you is is because it is healthier.
UK Voter: I was discussing with a friend your earlier response and we agreed that the best assistance developed countriss can render to others is to get rid of tariff barriers. Western governments may provide aid but by imposing tariff barriers help to keep those countries poor. Where aid is provided, then it makes sense for it to be to help assist in developing self-sufficiency – and for it to reach those who will actually benefit from it.
On ethical shopping, buying fair-trade goods is presumably a matter of ethics – there is no obvious health benefit, at least not to the buyer – and I suspect for many it is the same for organic and free range goods. I don’t buy organic goods for health reasons (in some cases it may not be any healthier but have the potential to be the opposite) but for ethical reasons; the same with free-range produce.