A chance missed to examine the real impact of SNP MPs

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/jul/19/letters-impact-of-scottish-mps-westminster

Version 0 of 1.

The arrival of 56 SNP MPs at Westminster is one of the most significant parliamentary developments of the last 100 years. It deserves serious coverage. Alas, your extended profile (“A breath of fresh air… or a timebomb at the very heart of Westminster?”, New Review) was not serious.

We learned that there are now lots more Scottish accents at Westminster. Presumably all those Labour and Lib Dem MPs previously representing Scottish constituencies spoke with German accents? SNP MPs apparently have long commutes, unlike all of their predecessors who presumably travelled by magic carpet. “They eat chips”, because chips were never served in any Westminster canteen until May. They “turn up”, because other MPs never even do that.

You report the claim that because of the new SNP MPs, Westminster now has the highest number of openly gay and lesbian MPs anywhere in the world. But the Westminster parliament already held that record before the election in May. But to know this would have required research and to report it would have challenged the entire thesis of the article.

You interview Stuart Donaldson, without noting that he is the son of an MSP, as well as the grandson of an MP. Imagine interviewing, say, a new Tory MP elected at the age of 23, who was the son and grandson of politicians. It takes nothing away from his astonishing achievement to note that you might have reported that slightly differently.

There are some interesting questions about how such a large influx of MPs might change Westminster, how it might change them, even how they might in turn change the SNP. There are interesting questions about how the SNP MPs, who thought they would be the balance of power in a hung parliament, achieve change when facing a government with an overall majority. It would have been useful if the article had engaged with some of those.

Professor Philip Cowley

University of Nottingham

Compensation isn’t complex

As a clinical negligence lawyer, please can I have the opportunity to set the record straight on both costs and compensation for claims (“Ministers rein in the lawyers who overcharge NHS millions”, News)?

There are only two ways to obtain compensation for clients. The first is that the NHS admits it was negligent and pays out compensation voluntarily as a result. The second is that a court finds at trial it was negligent and orders compensation to be paid.

It is the same with costs. At the conclusion of a successful claim, the NHS pays an agreed sum of money by way of costs to the lawyers who dealt with the claim. If a figure cannot be agreed, then the costs are assessed by the court, which orders a sum to be paid reflecting the costs due for the work done.

That’s it. There is no “recoupment”, no “clawbacks”, no “challenges”, no “savings”, no “overcharging”. Anyone paying costs has the right to have their bill assessed so they can be sure that the sum ordered to be payable is fair.

The NHS can save money by early admissions and offers of settlement and costs in suitable cases, or by not being negligent in the first place. Capping costs probably will lead to fewer claims, which in turn means the NHS will be less accountable to innocent patients. Wait until you are injured by the negligence of the NHS. We won’t seem to be the bad guys after all.

Brenda Gilligan

Market Rasen, Lincolnshire

A lesson in human rights

It’s now more than two decades since the people of Britain stood up for the human rights of people in South Africa. Now it’s our turn to reciprocate. We’ve heard with horror the plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a so-called British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Rights do not belong to any one nationality – they must be universal. Dividing people, setting their rights and freedoms apart on the basis of their passport or race, stripping them of their human rights, led to the worst abuses of the 20th century. It led to apartheid. And it can lead only to further injustice and dispossession. In the light of our own national experience, we urge the UK government to think again.

Archbishop Njongo Ndungane (former archbishop of Cape Town and Robben Island prisoneZackie Achmat (activist and film director); Louise Asmal (activist and widow of Kader Asmal, a member of Nelson Mandela’s cabinet); Mervyn E Bennun (ANC activist when ANC was in exile in the UK); Breyten Breytenbach (writer and painter); Andrew Feinstein (novelist and former ANC MP in South Africa); r); Denis Goldberg (former imprisoned activist); Pregs Govender (feminist human rights activist); Ebrahim Harvey (former trade unionist and political writer); Barbara Hogan (former government minister and first woman in South Africa found guilty of high treason); Rachel Holmes (anti-apartheid activist); Iqbal Jassat (chairman, Media Review Network); Ronald Kasrils (former South African minister for intelligence services); Ahmed Kathrada (former Robben Island prisoner and member of parliament); Mandla Langa (poet and novelist); Janet Love (anti-apartheid activist and Commissioner of South African Human Rights Commission); Lawson Naidoo (executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution); Margie Orford (journalist, film director and author); Dr Essop Pahad (former Minister in the Presidency, South Africa and editor of The Thinker magazine); Meg Pahad, (educationist and managing editor of The Thinker); Dr Vishwas Satgar (academic and activist); Sir Bob Hepple (exiled South African lawyer)

Yes, scientists read books too

I was fascinated to read the range of people you had identified to talk about the kind of books they would take on holiday (“Which books to reach for as you’re lying on the beach?” New Review). Yet scientists, engineers and technical people also read books. As this was meant to reflect a cross-section of society, why did you feature only people from the arts, media and entertainment?

This is so common where the media think they are portraying society. They tend to reflect only this particular group of people. These people make life more pleasant for us, it is true. But they are not the ones creating the fundamental advances and changes to our life. That is done by the technical people and, frankly, I would like to hear from them.

Although it is an unfamiliar world to you, please seek a few scientists, technical experts and engineers in future.

Max Webb

Stonesby, Leicestershire