Why Anas Sarwar has a perfectly good reason for going to the House of Lords
Any politician worth their salt wants the opportunity to be in government rather than opposition, writes Brian Wilson
I suspect much of the criticism of Anas Sarwar for joining the Labour government as trade minister is underpinned by nothing more noble than resentment and envy. This wasn’t in his opponents’ script.
Yet there is no rule which says defeated party leaders must stay defeated and serve out their days in the purgatory of Holyrood. Sarwar has done more than a decent shift and is fully entitled to accept a new opportunity to serve.
It wasn’t his fault that Labour suffered such a poor result in May. On the contrary, he had done as much as anyone could to put them in a strong position to challenge, only to see the rug repeatedly pulled from under him by mistakes made in Whitehall.
Lords boycott wouldn’t help
Nobody was more adept at hopping back and forward between Holyrood and Westminster than Alex Salmond since he found the latter a lot more interesting than the former, until he had the chance to run it. When that went wrong, he didn’t hang about.
Ah, say the aggrieved, but he didn’t go to the House of Lords which is then cited as Sarwar’s cardinal offence. This is just silly. As long as there is a second chamber, ministers are required within it and, by definition, they are appointed rather than elected. Individual boycotts do not change that.
Reforming the Lords is the oldest chestnut in politics and if it was easy, it would have happened. Tony Benn’s solution was to appoint a thousand Labour peers to get the job done. I suppose that is still an option but meanwhile we are left with incremental change while the business of government must proceed.
It went largely unnoticed recently when hereditary peers were finally eliminated from the Lords. It is possible now for ‘life’ peers to retire which means individuals appointed in order to become ministers, can (and should) leave when they have done their stint. Small steps for mankind, you may say, and fundamental reform is required.
A Scottish Senate
But Labour governments face the same question Tony Blair did when he set out with radical intent. How much political time and capital are you prepared to invest in a bitterly contested constitutional battle that few voters really care about? I happen to think they should take on that fight but understand why they don’t.
The more fundamental question is whether there should be a second chamber at all and one only has to look at Holyrood to get the answer. Flawed legislation flows from the place while the quality of debate is embarrassing. A wee Scottish Senate would be an enhancement of public life, just as Ireland’s is – and it isn’t elected either.
Any politician worth his or her salt wants the opportunity to be in government rather than opposition; to deliver rather than complain and to make decisions rather than be on the receiving end of them. Sarwar has earned that opportunity.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar 'delighted' to take up UK government job, as move to House of Lords confirmed
Thousands of small decisions
I had my own exhilarating experience, after ten years in opposition, of entering ministerial office, liberated to set policy courses and put long cherished ideas into practice. My first job was as education and industry minister in the pre-devolution Scottish Office.
The first crisis arose at Prestwick where BAE Systems were going to cut jobs with far wider implications. The civil service advice was to stay clear as it was a commercial decision. I sent back a note saying: “Haven’t you noticed there’s been a change of government?” We went on to turn adversity into opportunity.
That summed up the difference between power and impotence. Government is made up of thousands of small decisions as well as a lesser number of large ones. Often, it is the smaller ones which directly affect people’s lives and the principles of a Labour government should run through them all.
That only happens if ministers have the commitment and will to make change happen and to challenge risk-averse advice from officials. Otherwise you end up with what characterises Holyrood – government devoid of radicalism or creativity, written by the cautious hand of the civil service.
No minister can chart in advance the issues they will find themselves addressing. As devolution beckoned, I was reshuffled to the role Anas Sarwar will now fill, UK trade minister. Within a week, I was in Hanoi alongside my Vietnamese counterpart with an anxious audience of British business people looking on. It created a strong imperative not to put a word wrong.
Protecting jobs
One Saturday morning, I was at home when the phone rang and there was a rich Donegal accent on the other end. Columba Reid ran a company called Clan Douglas which made cashmere knitwear, 90 per cent of which went to the USA. Did I know, he asked, about the impending fate of his industry?
I didn’t but soon found out. Washington was pursuing a trade dispute with the EU over preferential treatment for bananas from Caribbean countries. The Yanks had gone to the World Trade Organisation and won approval to retaliate via punitive tariffs on unrelated products. Their list included cashmere knitwear.
It was all irrational and bizarre but it was real. For months, we engaged in “banana war” diplomacy and, much to the irritation of the Treasury, protected the cashmere industry by underwriting the additional tariffs until the whole thing blew over, as it duly did. Hardly the big stuff of politics but it mattered a lot to people’s jobs in the Borders.
As Anas Sarwar takes on his role in government, he has no idea what unexpected issues will arise. But arise they will. I’m glad it’s someone of his calibre and political principles who is there to deal with them and if that means having a temporary handle to his jug, then so be it.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.