Harman plans to be part of Labour's negotiating team. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Would more women on the parties' negotiating teams form a better coalition?

Backroom girls.

"Backroom boys" is a standard phrase when discussing the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors in Westminster. But what about the girls?

A good question asked of the panel on the BBC's Woman's Hour debate this morning was how each of the women (Harriet Harman, Caroline Lucas, Theresa May, Leanne Wood, Sal Brinton, Eilidh Whiteford and Diane James) would influence coalition negotiations. And would more women negotiating create a better-quality coalition?

The most telling answer was from Harriet Harman. She said: "I think all-male decision-making with women abiding by it is wrong, it's old-fashioned." She pointed out that decision-making is more effective when carried out by a diverse team. 

Harman was part of Labour's negotiating team (which failed) in 2010, but the successful two parties didn't have a single woman involved in the Tory/Lib Dem deal between them. And although Harman gave the standard line about working for a majority, there was a heavy hint that if it comes to doing a deal, she plans to be part of the process.

I hear from a shadow frontbench source that she would sacrifice a departmental role (she is currently both shadow culture secretary and deputy leader) to take a front seat both in negotiations, and the long-term establishment, of an alliance with another party.

***

Here are the other panelists' replies:

 - The SNP's Eilidh Whiteford struggled to answer the question, talking about the need for more women MPs in general.

 - The Home Secretary Theresa May too preferred to dodge it by saying "one woman in particular" (Nicola Sturgeon) would have all the influence in negotiations with Labour. 

 - Ukip's Diane James began talking about the experience of women in business, before being admonished by presenter Jenni Murray for failing to answer the question. "We all have testosterone," she retorted, when asked if Ukip was testosterone-fuelled.

 - Lib Dem party president Sal Brinton deployed what must be the Lib Dems' latest differentiation tactic (she gave the line to me first in an interview in January and Vince Cable said a similar thing to the Guardian in April): "The love-in in the rose garden wasn't helpful, it was wrong."

 - The Greens' Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru were more direct about women working together to form alliances, the former saying, "What we don't want to see is yet more men going behind closed doors, cooking things up." The latter highlighted how her party, Plaid Cymru, has been working with the Greens and the SNP on a more progressive agenda (all three parties have female leaders).

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Calum Kerr on Governing the Digital Economy

With the publication of the UK Digital Strategy we’ve seen another instalment in the UK Government’s ongoing effort to emphasise its digital credentials.

As the SNP’s Digital Spokesperson, there are moves here that are clearly welcome, especially in the area of skills and a recognition of the need for large scale investment in fibre infrastructure.

But for a government that wants Britain to become the “leading country for people to use digital” it should be doing far more to lead on the field that underpins so much of a prosperous digital economy: personal data.

If you want a picture of how government should not approach personal data, just look at the Concentrix scandal.

Last year my constituency office, like countless others across the country, was inundated by cases from distressed Tax Credit claimants, who found their payments had been stopped for spurious reasons.

This scandal had its roots in the UK’s current patchwork approach to personal data. As a private contractor, Concentrix had bought data on a commercial basis and then used it to try and find undeclared partners living with claimants.

In one particularly absurd case, a woman who lived in housing provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had to resort to using a foodbank during the appeals process in order to prove that she did not live with Joseph Rowntree: the Quaker philanthropist who died in 1925.

In total some 45,000 claimants were affected and 86 per cent of the resulting appeals saw the initial decision overturned.

This shows just how badly things can go wrong if the right regulatory regimes are not in place.

In part this problem is a structural one. Just as the corporate world has elevated IT to board level and is beginning to re-configure the interface between digital skills and the wider workforce, government needs to emulate practices that put technology and innovation right at the heart of the operation.

To fully leverage the benefits of tech in government and to get a world-class data regime in place, we need to establish a set of foundational values about data rights and citizenship.

Sitting on the committee of the Digital Economy Bill, I couldn’t help but notice how the elements relating to data sharing, including with private companies, were rushed through.

The lack of informed consent within the Bill will almost certainly have to be looked at again as the Government moves towards implementing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

This is an example of why we need democratic oversight and an open conversation, starting from first principles, about how a citizen’s data can be accessed.

Personally, I’d like Scotland and the UK to follow the example of the Republic of Estonia, by placing transparency and the rights of the citizen at the heart of the matter, so that anyone can access the data the government holds on them with ease.

This contrasts with the mentality exposed by the Concentrix scandal: all too often people who come into contact with the state are treated as service users or customers, rather than as citizens.

This paternalistic approach needs to change.  As we begin to move towards the transformative implementation of the internet of things and 5G, trust will be paramount.

Once we have that foundation, we can start to grapple with some of the most pressing and fascinating questions that the information age presents.

We’ll need that trust if we want smart cities that make urban living sustainable using big data, if the potential of AI is to be truly tapped into and if the benefits of digital healthcare are really going to be maximised.

Clearly getting accepted ethical codes of practice in place is of immense significance, but there’s a whole lot more that government could be doing to be proactive in this space.

Last month Denmark appointed the world’s first Digital Ambassador and I think there is a compelling case for an independent Department of Technology working across all government departments.

This kind of levelling-up really needs to be seen as a necessity, because one thing that we can all agree on is that that we’ve only just scratched the surface when it comes to developing the link between government and the data driven digital economy. 

In January, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and the New Statesman convened a discussion on this topic with parliamentarians from each of the three main political parties and other experts.  This article is one of a series from three of the MPs who took part, with an  introduction from James Johns of HPE, Labour MP, Angela Eagle’s view and Conservative MP, Matt Warman’s view

Calum Kerr is SNP Westminster Spokesperson for Digital