Pursuing justice and fairness

Tweet

 

As others have pointed out, the furore over the Post Office Horizon scandal has demonstrated that government can act quickly (well, comparatively quickly – even now they’re talking of passing an act of parliament ‘by the end of the year’) when the level of outrage reaches a sufficient level. What it has also demonstrated – to rather less attention – is the converse: if the outrage does not reach a sufficient level, then the default position (regardless of the colour of the government) is to drag feet, obfuscate, and hope that the issue goes away when the campaigners get fed up or die waiting for action. Of course no two scandals are the same. They all differ in scale and impact. But Horizon is not the only long-running scandal where people have lost their financial security – closer to home, one which immediately comes to mind is the Allied Steel and Wire Pensions case, where those affected have run a persistent campaign for years, including regular letters in the columns of the Western Mail. And, no matter the nature of the differences, an injustice is an injustice.

It raises the question about what level of outrage is ‘sufficient’ to make government act. Clearly an effective drama-documentary helps a great deal, as does unfavourable coverage of politicians in the media, particularly the media usually regarded as supportive. Being in an election year is another advantage, as is the fact that those affected are spread across the UK impacting many constituencies, not just a few in what looks to London like far-away Cardiff. But one of the measures that politicians use to judge the extent of what they like to call ‘cut-through’ is the size of their postbag on an issue. It is a remarkably unsophisticated and misleading measurement, however. As an example of its use as a measure (not related to an injustice in this case), I seem to remember Mark Drakeford saying recently that whilst he received a large volume of correspondence in the immediate aftermath of introducing the 20mph speed limits, that had now dropped off, with the implicit suggestion that people were now accepting the change. Now, as it happens, I agree with the new limits (although the government could and should have done more to persuade and inform people in advance), but leaving that aside, let’s consider the proposition that reducing postbags reflect reducing concern. I may be willing to write an occasional cross letter to a minister, elected member, local authority, or even newspaper, but most people are not. Social media makes it easier to sign petitions, but it’s still, generally, a minority sport. Inevitably, the number of letters received will peak at some point, usually immediately after the proposal receives attention and/or gets implemented. But (unless the same people keep on writing, in which case they’ll get labelled as persistent complainers), once people have signed the petition, or written their cross letter, there is an inevitability about a decline in the number of complaints which is nothing to do with increased acceptance of the situation, whatever that might be.

Even more important than assessing whether the level of outrage is sufficient to provoke action is the wider question about whether action should depend on the level of outrage in the first place. An injustice doesn’t cease to be one just because the affected individual is the only one raising it. For sure, some MPs and MSs are quite good at pursuing matters on behalf of constituents, but many are not, especially if the number affected is low and there are no good photo-ops available. Or their seat is a safe one. Should we, in any event, really be dependent on individual elected members to provide such a service? After all, it isn’t really what legislators are elected for – the clue is in the word. We have a plethora of ombudspersons for various bodies and sectors, but they are not always easily accessible, and seem to work at an incredibly slow pace. There is a gap which Citizens Advice Bureaux attempt to fill, but should we really be dependent either on volunteers/charities or political figures and their staff to act as tribunes for citizens? Politicians frequently talk about ‘holding people to account’, but there should be more to that than public criticism after the event. The Post Office scandal underlines that we haven’t got it right yet. It’s still far too difficult for individuals to ensure that they are treated justly and fairly.