Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

Two sessions on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill today. I have to introduce our amendments in what is a gigantic group of amendments, but Dominic Grieve goes first for the Tories. Our (Lib Dem) amendments are in three groups. One deals with the threshold for prosecution. Labour are changing one of the race definitions for prosecutions to another definition which would seem to need to lower the bar for such a prosecution but which the Minister, Paul Goggins, was arguing wasn't a lowering of the bar.

It all gets very arcane (though no less important for that) very quickly – we went on to arguments about phrases such as 'intent' and 'likely to likely' as a level of probability, risk or recklessness.

I was relatively brief again (heartily welcomed I felt by most) and did refer to the whole thing being a 'likely' mess resulting in a 'likely' feast for lawyers.

And thus after numerous further arguments the sessions closed and the Bill will now go back to the House for its third reading.

Off in the event to the Haringey Race Equality Council's AGM - where I say a few words to the assembled audience. All the communities are involved and it is always a pleasure to support all those involved in working to improve community issues and relationships in Haringey - just the best melting pot in anywhere in London in my view.

Round off a busy day with a rally against ID cards in the evening. It's organised by NO2ID - the campaign group now in full flight against the government's proposals.

When I get there George Galloway is speaking and as he finishes I go up to my seat on the panel and have to immediately speak. The hall is absolutely packed and it is hot as hell. I deliver my speech (along the same lines as in the Commons debate - but better and more fully developed) and then it is Dominic Grieve and then Tony Benn.

It is a strange alliance that crosses any party lines - but all who care passionately about liberty and freedom. Benn is brilliant. Never thought I'd share a platform with him - how extraordinary is this thing called life.

Labels: george galloway, id cards

International Development Questions - and I have Oral Question Number 4. I am asking the Minister about Darfur. The Chamber - at 11.55 when I get called to 'put' the question - is heaving as Prime Ministers' Questions follows.

I ask the Government if they do not now recognise the need for the United Nations Security Council to increase the presence of the African Union and strengthen their mandate so that the level of protection is increased in Darfur. The situation there is so insecure and unstable that refugees and internally displaced persons are still unlikely to return. The Minister is nice about it - but basically says no.

Then it is Prime Ministers' Questions - always a blast!

Then I am into the second session of the Committee Stage on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. I know that the following day, for the two Thursday sessions, Alistair (my Lib Dem colleague on the committee) is going to have to leave me on my own as he has to return to Orkney for a prior commitment. However, by the time he leaves just before the end of today's session, all our amendments on which we have to lead will have been moved. So I will only have to interject on the Tory amendments and general arguments.

Best laid plans of mice and men ... Dominic Grieve (for the Conservatives) makes a brilliant argument on one of the amendments - but it takes an hour - so Alistair has to leave and I am left to introduce amendments myself.

And I do. And it is absolutely terrifying. And it goes fine. I make the points - albeit briefly in comparison to my learned other members - and get out alive. I have always been thrown in the deep end - seems to be my destiny. I remember becoming Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when I had only visited one meeting in my life. I became Chair of Transport on the London Assembly - when I had never chaired anything in my life!

It's always terrifying - but it is the best way on this earth to learn. So I guess I was grateful - but it was (even for me) a testing experience.

Labels: darfur, pmqs

Early meeting with Peter Wingate-Saul, the National Community Relations Manager at Crown Castle UK - who are a company who find sites for mobile telephone masts. He has asked for a meeting as he wants to put the mobile phone industry’s side of the case regarding health risks and how guidelines and government views are formed, on what authority and on whose advice.

I am pleased, as always, to hear all sides and have some sympathy in terms of the case he made for not making legislation based on people’s fears but rather making it based on substantive points. However, I am still not convinced that we can be sure there is no harm whatsoever from mobile phone masts or phones.

I am firm in my belief that proper planning processes should be applied to all masts and that until there is more information - preferable more definitive information - we would be wise to continue to be cautious on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. In fact I have backed an Early Day Motion in this regard this week. (There's ane explanation of what EDMs are on the Parliament website).

One of the women in one of the local campaigns believes her child is already suffering radiation sickness and has had a test done on the roots of his hair which she says show positive. I have asked if there is an NHS hospital that is carrying out these tests - as it may be important to try and get a wider health survey of such evidence properly tested.

Labels: mobile phone masts, nhs

Busy day as, after the committee stage on incitement to religious hatred, it’s the Second Reading debate on ID cards in the Chamber.

I am soooooooooo against ID cards - and desperate to get called to speak in the debate. The debate starts at 3.30pm and will conclude with a vote at 10pm. I know that I will have to sit in the Chamber for all that time - to have even a flying chance of catching Mr Speaker's eye to get called. But it will be worth it.

Charles Clarke moves the proposed legislation - defending the indefensible. David Davis (Tory Shadow Home Secretary) then gets a go - and delivers a good speech. Unlike most of the Tories who only so recently in the election were for the introduction of ID cards - Davies was always against them. As power shifts from Michael Howard to the wannabe leaders - the wind has blown Tories into opposition. Latecomers - but nevertheless - finally on the side of the angels.

Then there are another couple of speeches before the Speaker comes to Mark Oaten - the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary. He gives a great speech - and then the debate moves on to back benchers who are limited to 10 minute speeches.

As the day wears on into night - I bob up and down as each speaker finishes hoping to be called. Hour after hour passes. The debate in itself is fascinating - and many, indeed most, of the speeches from all sides of the House (including Labour) are against ID cards. Ironically - the outcome will depend on Labour rebels - and whilst the words are strong, I doubt whether the votes will follow in adequate numbers to defeat the Government at this stage.

Without rehearsing the whole argument - the bill falls on so many counts, one is spoilt for choice as to what to oppose. (There’s plenty of good background on the arguments at www.no2id.net).

For me – the key is civil liberties. This proposed legislation flies in the face of everything I believe in. I was born free and thought I was innocent until proven guilty. I have the right - inalienable right in my view - to walk out of my front door without the need to prove anything to anyone so long as I cause no harm. I do not need the Government's permission in the form of an ID card - a license to do this - let alone a license that will cost between one and three hundred pounds, is technologically unsound and will lead to a database of information about me that no one - not state nor anyone - has a right to know! I will be treated like a criminal. I will be fingerprinted and information on me stored on a national database - information that no one needs to know or has a right to know.

OK - you get my tone on this!

So there I am, bobbing up and down, as hour after hour passes. I hold the front bench for the Home Affairs team - whilst Mark and Alistair (my Lib Dem numbers 1 and 2 on the team - I am number 3) go to eat. As the clock approaches 8.30pm - I am becoming despondent about my chances of being called - as more people are still rising than there is time to call them. Suddenly Mr Deputy Speaker (the Speakers change throughout the session) announces that because so many people still want to speak - the speeches will now be cut to 5 minutes for the next hour. At 9.20pm - finally - I get called.

I make my key points: civil liberties, the problems with righting wrong information giving history of IT problems and the discrimination that will follow as ID cards become compulsory (which they will - as sure as eggs is eggs) towards members of ethnic communities who from my experience with police stop and search will be stopped and asked to produce the card in the end.

I cite what has happened with DNA and how now innocent people’s DNA is being kept on a database and how much more black DNA is being stored than white DNA in London.

Then we are into the winding up speeches. The Labour man - Tony McNulty - chooses to attack me from the Despatch Box as he closes, calling me irresponsible and wrong. So I must be doing something right!

Then the Speaker calls for Ayes - and there is a roar of 'ayes' from the Labour benches. Then the Speaker calls for the Noes - and there is a roar of 'no' from the Lib Dems and the Tories. It’s all very tribal and traditional, but we have the shouting match before the Speaker calls out 'Division' - and the bells start ringing as we pour into the lobbies to vote in person. Sadly - not enough Labour rebels rebel - and the second reading is passed. The Bill now passes into its Committee Stage.

Amazing to have had a voice and a vote (however tiny) in opposing something I believe will destroy our way of life and begin the journey to a police state. And - many, many local residents have contacted me to say they care passionately too. The weight of opinion in my postbag is very clear.

Labels: charles clarke, david davis, dna, id cards, mark oaten

First experience of Committee Stage proceedings at Parliament – this is part of the legislative passage through the Commons of a Bill. Today it is the first session on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. Alistair Carmichael - my LibDem colleague - is leading for us in committee and I am his number two. The idea is that I learn the ropes so that when I lead the Violent Crime Reduction Bill through Committee stage in the Autumn I will know what I am doing.

The first thing that strikes me is that I need to be a lawyer. The whole process imitates court proceeding where each line of the proposed Bill is examined - with amendments laid down on virtually every point. Each amendment is then 'moved' (introduced verbally) by the person (and therefore party) who has laid down that particular amendment. All sides then argue the case on each point - point by point - and from what I could see - at extreme length.

So far so good!

The Bill is (in my view) a well-meaning attempt by the Government to try and stop people inciting people to hate other people because of their religious beliefs - that is hatred of the believer not the belief.

My experience of religion (as an agnostic) is that quite a lot of religion, although not necessarily practised as preached, is about hating others and condemning those with different beliefs. And therein lies the difficulties in this Bill. Quite what is it that should be protected – and what is it that people shouldn’t be able to do?

Labour say they want to make things equal in terms of the fact that Jews and Sikhs are covered by the existing legislation. But that’s because Jews (and Sikhs) are different to all other religions in that the religion is inseparable from the race. The counter argument is that the law covers all races and for them it covers them if the incitement is racial - but not religious.

Lib Dems have put what is called the 'Lester Amendment' which helps the Bill give protection to what we believe the Bill is actually aimed at - Muslims who post 9/11 have suffered abuse and hatred in its wake. The proposition is that they are being attacked as 'Muslims' but the hatred is really racially motivated rather than religiously motivated. Therefore the amendment seeks to cover those who use religion as a 'proxy' for racial hatred. But it keeps freedom of speech – including the ability to disagree with and criticise people’s religious beliefs.

Ok - I am not going to try and describe the ins and outs of each of the four sessions - but you can see the way this is going.

Labels: violent crime reduction bill

Spent day ping-ponging between my home and Millbank to do TV interviews covering the imminent debate on ID cards. Buggered up my Sunday - but well worth it as absolutely passionately against this misguided and authoritarian legislation.

Meanwhile, a bit of whimsy ... One of the big problems behind knife crime and the culture that goes with it is that having a knife is seen as cool. How to break this culture? Why not issue a knife to every MP ... that would be the death knell of coolness for the poor knife!

Labels: crime, knife crime

Surgery all day at Wood Green library. I am still pondering the benefits of open surgeries (where anyone can turn up, and people queue to see you) with "by appointment" surgeries (where people book a time in advance and get to see you then).

I have asked around MPs who have similar constituencies how they manage. The answers vary - from some who hold open surgeries, often with the punters only getting five minutes after being kept waiting for long times. One MP (not from my party) said 'they don't mind - they haven't anything else to do anyway'. I think that's dreadful myself. Maybe it's because I was brought up to believe that the 'customer' should be treated well that I don't think I could be (or would wish to be) that cavalier.

So - I am doing it by arrangement and giving each person around 15 minutes. It tends to be about the right time - and now I have got a form that people can fill in before they come in - am able to keep to time. Also - we can spend longer on the phone when people call to identify their issue and whether actually a phone call or writing is quicker and better than an actual appointment.

I am just keeping a record of everything at the moment in terms of how many people phone/want an appointment/come to surgery and where they come from. After the August recess, I will decide how many hours are appropriate and where the surgeries should be held. By all means let me have your views - use the "contact me" link on the left.

Not at Parliament today as not needed for the chamber and have two local commitments. First of the day is a meeting with the Director of the Mountview Theatre School to see if there are ways that I can be of help in their aspiration to combine on one site and to draw some synergy with the Chocolate Factory - an artists colony next door.

We reminisce - well I do - about my first contact with the Theatre School when I was about 8 and was understudy for a production they were putting on - 'The Innocents'. I remember it so clearly - and spent years thereafter hankering to be an actor. Happily for me that didn't work out and I became a designer.

What my love of theatre has done though is give me a great belief in the arts and entertainment. And I will always want to promote entertainment, arts and culture as it breathes life and fun into life.

At lunchtime, and in the blistering heat, I am at the ceremony to open the Therapeutic Network at Canning Crescent. Horrifically and short-sightedly - Haringey saw fit to close the two mental day-care hospitals in our borough. Campaigners - after a two-year battle - have succeeded in getting this service (in different form and much smaller) re-opened. Hurrah. Great occasion - but very hot!

Labels: chocolate factory

Breakfast meeting with a briefing from Liberty on ID cards. Won't rehearse the arguments here - but am sharing platform with Tony Benn and George Galloway on the subject next Wednesday. Of course we will all be on the side of the angels and against ID cards - and almost certainly so will the audience. But delighted to be involved in fighting what I regard as one of the most outrageous attacks on civil liberties in my lifetime (and it’s a long list to choose from - control orders, removal of right to trial by jury, loss of freedom of speech...).

I have been shocked by the ravages of Labour on the very heart of all the things I believe in. It's even worse close up in Parliament.

At the Lib Dem Home Affairs Team meeting - the news is that Evan (who was going to lead on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill next week) is now going to have to address a health conference. As Alistair Carmichael (Deputy Shadow Home Secretary) can only do the Tuesday - I will have to lead on it on the Thursday. It's fine - I have never even attended a Bill Committee - but I am sure by next Thursday I will know it all - I will have to!

Into Prime Minister's Questions. It is fun - but I am not attempting a question as yet. A couple of ours bob up and down trying to get called - but the whole half hour passes without a Lib Dem being called at all. Is this fair? It's up to Mr Speaker basically - and I guess we just didn't catch his eye.

In the evening, we new MPs, the Lib Dem intake of 5th May '05, meet at the National Liberal Club for a dinner - partly to get to know each other but also to examine what we have seen, heard and experienced so far with our own party.

It was quite an exciting evening with challenging contributions from each new MP around the table. We form about a third of the Lib Dem parliamentary party - so a substantive grouping - and plenty of thoughts about how we want to see things turn out.

Labels: george galloway

Yesterday there was a press conference at which a cross-party representation of us politicians who are against the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill and a sprinkling of the famous names in like mode were gathered to launch our preferred amendment.

The Bill goes into its second reading today and the argument lies at present in the legislation having unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences being attacks on freedom of speech and the use of the legislation to attack religious opponents.

So, present amongst others were Rowan Atkinson and Ian McEwan. Fine words were spoken. Couldn't have wished for better exponents of what is called the Lester Amendment. This changes the Bill to 'incitement to religious hatred as a proxy for racial hatred'.

But today the Bill has its second reading. I am on the front bench as I will be one of two taking this Bill through Committee Stage next week. And just as with Violent Crime Reduction - I need to know all the arguments. So I take notes for hours - and hours.

It is a good debate - but whilst I think Labour know it's poor legislation and doesn't deliver the intentions behind it - I think they feel they must drive it through. No doubt they will be looking for a way out of this mess.

I am relieved for one hour to go and have some food - and I go to the Members Dining room. You are only meant to sit on your 'traditional' table – i.e. a particular table where members of your party always sit. At 'our' table are a group of Lib Dems who I join. Amongst them is John Hemming, one of our new MPs from Birmingham who has so recently received huge amounts of publicity for his private life. He had given a brilliant quote - "all my children are love children" - and handled it pretty well given the circumstances.

Big day - as 'my' Bill (the Violent Crime Reduction Bill) is getting its second reading today. I won't have to lead on the floor of the Commons as our Shadow Home Secretary, Mark Oaten, will do that. But I will have to speak and get a grip on the debate so that when I lead for the Lib Dems as the bill goes through its committee stage I will know what I am doing and where the debate is.

(If you're wondering what second readings and committee stages are, there's an explanation of how laws pass through Parliament at www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/legislation.html).

But first I have lunch with the Evening Standard lobby correspondent. He seems really OK. Have worked with lots of journalists from the ES and they have all been great - so far.

Then (barring quick press conference on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill) off to the chamber for the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Basically this bill tries to address the twin rising problems of alcohol and weapons. In a typically Labour way - some of it is right, but some of it is gesture 'tough on crime' politics.

For example - there is a proposal to stiffen the laws around the manufacture, sale and carrying of imitation firearms. I totally agree with the general intent of this. However - the bit on carrying states that the sentence will be raised from 6 months to 12 months. So I make an intervention whilst Charles Clarke (Home Secretary) is introducing the proposals to ask why a 6 month stiffening? What work has been done to estimate the reduction in carrying that that particular length of sentence will deliver?

Basically - it's all speculative says Charles. Hmm – not an impressive way to make laws! (You can read the exchange in Hansard).

OK - so what would I have done to establish this before guestimating an addition to the sentence? I would have first established how many people had been done for carrying and what sentences they had (in fact I have a Parliamentary Question down on this). I would have gone back to them to survey whether they had any idea of what sentence was on the books, how much of deterrent it was, etc.

Anyway - the main area of disaster in these proposals is the plan for Alcohol Disorder Zones. If there is a lot of drunken, abusive and criminal behaviour in a particular location, the Local Authority and the Police will have the power to create an area where all those inside deemed to have alcohol as their main trade (a minefield in itself) will have eight weeks in which to produce an action plan and improve. But if they don't - a levy will be imposed to pay for extra policing.

Fine in principle - polluter pays. Love it. But - good landlords will be treated same as bad (and probably move to a better area). The area will get a name as a 'no go' area - and people (consumers) will stop going there. Property values will plummet. And so on.

So - sounds a good idea at first – but not thought through. But as I say - the thrust of the Bill to get a grip on the British malaise of drinking yourself to oblivion on a Friday night is right. But as ever with Labour - there is no other side to the equation: examining why people drink themselves stupid, why it is a status symbol to carry a knife or a gun - and so on.

When the great reforming legislation on drink driving and wearing a seatbelt came into being - the Government put immense resource behind the message it was sending out about irresponsible behaviour. The resource was both in enforcement of the legislation yet also the huge educational and advertising campaigns that accompanied the change in the law. Labour is still shallow in its intent and will. Right message - lack of real depth to deliver change!

And I said so in my speech!

Labels: charles clarke, crime, knife crime, mark oaten, violent crime reduction bill

A bit long - but quite good: http://eclectech.co.uk/clarkeidcards.php !

Labels: id cards

First event of the day - meeting with parents from Campsbourne Infants and Junior schools.

Second event of the day - Highgate Summer Fair in Pond Square.

Third event of the day - over to St Martin de Porres primary school in Bounds Green for to their Summer Fete. Introduce myself to head and agree to come back and do something with the children.

And last event of the day - opening the Inderwick Road street party. On what was a baking hot day, the fire-fighters from Hornsey Fire Station had come with an engine and were shooting a hose high into the air - with a herd of children running in and out of the spray with squeals of absolute delight.

One of the organisers, Maggie, pulls me into her house to meet 10 Chinese policemen and women who are over here from Beijing to learn about crowd control and public order in time for the Beijing Olympics. I am unclear why they have come to Inderwick Road Street Party to learn about public order and crowd control - unless there's something about the denizens of Inderwick that the powers that be know and I don't!

At around 4.15pm I am given the microphone to open the party - which I do. I warn the gathering hordes of the Chinese Police presence vis a vis crowd control - to hoots of laughter. And it's on with the show - with fancy dress competitions, barbeques and bands until late in the evening.

I leave after about an hour and go home to enjoy a late bit of sunshine in my garden.

Labels: olympics

Surgery all day at Wood Green library. Today the range of issues was quite extraordinary, including tackling the US government to try to get an international student loan for a fantastic bright young girl who has won the opportunity to go to an American university. To battle!

I co-host a talk by American Author Michael Jacobson on downsizing prisons, who has a new book out. He has run jails in the US and argues that the costs of expanding prisons to take ever more prisoners takes money away from services such as education and health – and so causes more crime rather than cutting it.

I listen to my co-hosts (Labour and Tory) ramble on about how they believe in education, training, rehabilitation and how prison and punishment are not the way forward.

As someone said to me afterwards - how I restrained myself from having a go at them was a miracle! Having just emerged from an election with the most outrageous attacks on me/us for being soft on crime because we believe you need to do more than just lock people up - how they had the balls to pretend they believed in all of the stuff Lib Dems believe in was extraordinary. Both Tory and Labour did nothing but bang the authoritarian drum on this during the election. But conveniently left their drums at home for this event!

Labels: crime

10.15 on a Wednesday morning is the Lib Dem Home Affairs Team meeting. We all gather - Mark Oaten (Shadow Home Secretary), Alistair Carmichael (his deputy), me - (police, crime and disorder), the Lords Home Affairs team, staff and – today- Lord Lester as we are discussing the Equality Commission Bill going through the Lords that day.

I am still not one hundred percent convinced that we should have a single Commission that bungs together race, gender and disability into one body – but before we have a Single Equality Act. To me it is cart before horse - and smacks more of the Government's desire to lessen the ability of the three current Commissions to lobby them successfully.

The other main legislation at the moment is the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. The idea is to tackle discrimination against Muslims in particular, but its provisions are likely to cause them more harm than good and stir up a whole raft of other evils. The increasing emphasis on bringing religion in line with race in terms of legislation is dangerous.

When I was Chairing the Stop and Search Implementation Panel of the Met Police Authority (until a few weeks ago) it was beginning to creep into that agenda too. There was a move to suggest that because of the increasing number of stops on Muslims (or more accurately those who looked 'Muslim') the police should introduce religious monitoring.

The initial reaction of the Met and the Labour members of the MPA was to jump to and deliver this to rectify the blatant discrimination that was being perpetrated against Muslims. But I fought it (amongst others) as the wrong solution to the problem - and moreover a political solution prior to the General Election.

I had the Home Office in to give some of their evidence on the research they had been doing into this area. It was very interesting - as Muslims in the North of England were dead against it - as opposed to Muslims in London. Many of the religious groups were dead against it - unsurprisingly. Jews and Sikhs who have both been persecuted through the ages for their religious beliefs made it quite clear that they did not wish to have to reveal their religion to anyone.

Anyway - the point I am making is that these are tinderbox times - and all of us in the political maelstrom had better be careful that we do not create a monster that destroys us. I know - dramatic language - but I am extremely concerned about religious freedoms, rights and free speech - which I regard as the tenets of a civilised and peaceful society.

Later at the Parliamentary Party meeting we have the hustings for Chair of the Parliamentary Party. It is the first time this has been contested - as in previous years there has only been one candidate. The result is the challenger (Paul Holmes) wins, defeating the incumbent (Matthew Taylor).

Labels: mark oaten, mpa

Off in the morning to the Vodafone shop in Muswell Hill Broadway to join Muswell Hill Mothers Against Masts. Vodafone had gone ahead and turned on their controversial new mobile phone mast. Now - the mothers continue to protest and I support them. We need legislation which will give local authorities the power to reject applications on the 'precautionary principle', such as where such applications are sited near vulnerable members of society.

We do (nearly!) all use mobiles - but precaution near the most vulnerable seems a good compromise to me.

The surveyors working with Vodafone have contacted me since the meeting to say that they believe there is less danger near to masts. I will meet them. I think their argument is going to be that a mobile phone (which is much closer than a mast to an individual and so the impact of its signal on the individual is much stronger) will emit less when it is near a mast - so conversely (and counter-intuitively) the user will get less exposure if they live near a mast as the mobile phone in their hand will be emitting less – because it is nearer a mast and so having to work less hard. But of course mobile phone users have choice about whether or not to have them, switching them off etc. Someone who has a mast put in near where they live doesn’t have that choice.

Then off to Haringey Council for a briefing about school places. This was one of the main local issues I talked about in my maiden speech.

Pressure from parents who have not been able to get their children into any of the top three preferences has worked to a degree. Expansion is now taking place in the Muswell Hill and Crouch End areas - and thank goodness there was an election coming up to focus the efforts and kick the Labour-run council out of its past complacency on the issue. Without the political pressure that forces action when lost votes are looming on the horizon, it may very well not have happened.

Then a summer garden party at Kekewick House. All care homes should be like this. The garden is gorgeous - and we are celebrating the new summerhouse, which is gorgeous too and will allow residents to sit in the garden all year round protected from the weather. Tea and scones go round - and it truly is an idyll for elderly care.

Round off the day with a meeting with Harriet Harman to discuss constitutional affairs – for which she is the Minister. I believe we should be doing more to safeguard postal voting against possible fraud. During the election many people were actually scared to vote by post because of the reported level of abuse. As to the Government’s long promised 'review' of electoral reform - I get the feeling they want to kick it into the long grass in real terms. If there was fair voting for Westminster elections - 36% of the vote would not give them the sort of power 'first past the post' has just delivered. Christmas and turkeys I'm afraid.

Later am hanging around waiting for vote on the Lottery Bill second reading - when the debate fizzles out and there is no vote that night so can go home around 8.30pm - early night!

Labels: haringey schools, harriet harman, mobile phone masts

Nick (Mr Europe and jolly good at it) Clegg rang last week to say could I step into his shoes and take his place speaking at an Age Concern reception in Parliament.

The reception is held in the Speaker's House - not so much of house as a castle at the left-hand side of Westminster Palace as you look from the main road. The apartments were grand – understatement! Reception rooms, leading to a state dining room with a table that would seat I guess about 50 or 60 - leading to a bedroom with the whole caboodle of four poster, desks, etc. Of course, Mr Speaker actually lives upstairs - but this is where he entertains.

Drinking champagne (yes - sorry - already being seduced by now being member of best gentleman's club in town) and chatting, I discover that there will be three MP speakers as well as the Chief Executive of Age Concern and the Speaker himself - the other two being Teresa May and David Blunkett.

I gravitate, as instructed, towards the far end of the mile-long dining table and guests assemble around it. Mr Speaker (Michael Martin) and I have a little chat. I thought what he did when Patsy Carlton, our LibDem MP for Cheadle, came to the Commons to swear in - in a wheelchair and only a few days before she died after a long battle with cancer - was absolutely fantastic.

Patsy was pushed in the wheelchair as far as the Despatch Box where the chamber becomes too narrow for the chair to pass. Mr Speaker came down from his chair, kissed her, and said 'welcome home Patsy'. I can't even write this without welling up. It was incredibly moving and entirely the right thing to do. It was against all tradition - and this place is literally the bastion of tradition.

Anyway - after Mr Speaker and Age Concern spoke - I had my turn. They had chosen the three MPs not just from the three parties - but an oldy (David Blunkett), a middly (Teresa May) and myself as a new kid - three generations of MPs.

Labels: david blunkett, nick clegg

New time management technique (see Saturday) in disarray due to desire to read Sunday papers and prepare brief for ITV who are picking me up at 11am. Succumb to croissants and papers so that only one of my three 'planned' hours prior to pick up survives. I am off to do the very last ever programme of ITV’s 'The Week' on congestion charging.

I am taken into make-up where Nick Ferrari (I would love a surname like Ferrari!) is being done. I ask to see his teeth - now legendary for their brilliant whiteness - so much so that it is rumoured you no longer need light, you just ask Nick to smile! He seems pretty jolly and gives me a private view of his pearly whites. They are completely perfect and shining bright in an American sort of a way.

But more generally at the studios there are mumblings and rumblings of unhappiness as ITV is cutting back - or more accurately - cutting out coverage of regional politics. The decline of coverage has gone from not that long ago 15 hours per week, to now - none after today. Taken together with the shift at London Tonight to become a more 'magazine' format - the relentless march of dumbing down continues.

While I am there, one of the newscasters grabs me and asks if I will do a news slot on the doubling of fines for fare dodgers. I am delighted - as this is one of the policies I pushed at the GLA. As ever, Ken was disparaging when I first mooted it publicly – and is now adopting it. He has done that with so many transport ideas I just don't know how he will manage without me!

Back home to continue with rigorous timetable!

Surgery all morning - and in the afternoon my farewell drinks from the London Assembly. It was great to see everyone again. Brian Paddick came (representing Sir Ian Blair). He is just the best example of how police and policing should be - whether that is totally appreciated by the Met I am not sure.

Brian had just been appointed the lead person for the Met on its stop and search policy. Leaving the London Assembly has also meant leaving the MPA, so I'm no longer chairing its panel dealing with stop and search. But at least I know that there will be someone batting for truth and justice at the Met on this issue.

Labels: brian paddick, mpa

I missed the first Prime Minister's Questions as I had to attend Mayor's Question Time at City Hall a couple of weeks ago - but today I am in situ and waiting for this contest. Tony gets himself into all sorts of trouble over the EU Constitution mess we are in. I think it is probably a very good lesson for politicians not to forget that the people in the end have a way of expressing themselves and whilst I am for a new constitution - I think it is quite good to get a kick up the backside and have to re-examine both guiding principles and practicality of implementation and consequences.

Interesting to me (trying to learn procedure so that I can join in) that in these questions - there is no notification on the Order Paper as to what the question will be and the chosen ones get to ask the Prime Minister the actual question - but don't have a supplementary (unless they are the Leader of the Official Opposition etc). Mere mortals - just get the one go - which in the end means the Prime Minister generally wins. Thus democracy is always stacked in favour of the chosen ones.

Labels: pmqs

The Violent Crime Bill is published today. I am the Lib Dem spokesperson on this in the Commons and will be taking it through the committee stage.

The bill is to bring in measures to address the rising problems around replica guns, the age at which you can buy a knife and binge-drinking. All very real problems - so Lib Dems are broadly in favour of the measures - with some heavy provisos around the detail, which I guess are where our amendments will be as we go through the legislation.

A while back, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), I went to visit the Met's firearms division SO19 to see what armed officers do, learn about their training and see what they have to confront. There is now this amazing video / computer technology that puts you in a crime situation - and you see something happen, maybe a gun turn on you, and in a split second have to decide what action to take. Then it flashes up on the screen whether you were right to shoot or wrong - or indeed whether you are dead. Salutary experience for me. I couldn't do it. I couldn't get it right one hundred percent of the time. And I certainly couldn't tell the difference between a replica gun and a real one.

Moreover, I went into the arms room where they have dozens of guns and their replicas - side by side in pairs - from revolvers to rifles. These are not some near approximation for the real thing. These replicas are indistinguishable from the real thing.

So - I am supportive of banning such replicas - so long as the law isn't an ass. What I mean is that it has to be enforceable at the same time as not interfering with the harmless – such as props for plays. Let’s hope the legislation can cope with drawing this distinction in a workable manner.

On the age being raised to 18 to buy a knife - I think the government will get itself in a tangle. There is a great debate to be had about the age of majority. What can and should one be allowed to do at 16, 17 or 18? However, the notion that a couple can marry and have children at 16 but not buy a knife may well be in danger of being the wrong solution to a very real problem.

I regard knife crime as seriously as I regard gun crime and do not understand why knife crime carries lesser sentences. That is an area I would like to see tackled alongside a wide debate about the age of majority.

And then there is binge-drinking. Perhaps the government needs to pause before going ahead with 24 hour lifestyles. In the end - it is probably right - but there are clearly a number of drawbacks that need attention before that goes ahead.

But the real point about all of the above - they may go some way to satisfying the 'tough on crime' but they don't even begin to touch on being 'tough on the causes of crime'. What is it in our society that makes young men aspire to criminality as a way of gaining status with their peers? Why does carrying a knife mean more than doing well at school? Why do young people want to drink themselves into oblivion on a Friday night?

A change in culture is the hardest thing to achieve - because it takes massive effort at all levels for a long time. Sometimes laws can deliver - drink driving and wearing seatbelts are examples. But there was so much more than legislation to them. There was a real underlying resource poured into campaigning and advertising - and that is what shifted the culture when combined with enforcement.

So tough laws can deliver - but not if they are only there for appearance sake.

Labels: crime, knife crime, mpa

Crack of dawn birthday celebrations on Tuesday for my youngest daughter - 16 today - and a GCSE exam too. So not fair! And I won't be home until after 10pm as a vote is expected in Parliament then.

At the Commons I go into the chamber for the day's questions. Today is questions to the Minister for Scotland. Clearly this is not a subject close to the heart of my constituency - but I am trying to see how you get to speak or ask a question.

The apparently random bobbing up and down by members in the Chamber seems to bear no or little relationship to getting called. Actually, that's not quite true - you do have to stand to indicate you wish to be called and to be called - but that can mean that if a debate starts at 3.30pm you have to stand up after every speech right to the end of the debate (which can be around 9.30pm) - and you still may not get called.

But questions are different. You are notified if one of your oral questions is accepted and it is put on the Order Paper - in order! The Speaker calls your name and you stand up and say 'Question 3 Mr Speaker'. The Minister then answers and then you are allowed one supplementary - but then others can bob up and down on your question and Mr Speaker may call them. How or why Mr Speaker chooses a supplicant - at this point I have no idea.

We are informed that although we were supposed to stay until 10pm for a vote - this is not going to happen now. So I go to the Press Gallery reception for new MPs and chat up the media. Clearly a good idea as when I rise on Wednesday morning there is a message left at around 6.30am to call Sky news about the Violent Crime Bill.

I arrived at the second Kurdish Womens' Festival where I had been invited to speak. Kurdish women have had an interesting trajectory and in their struggles have put top of their agenda equality among men and women - as well as the issue of rights in the lands where they live - Iran, Syria, Armenia, Turkey, etc.

Interesting - because the role of women in the Middle East (as elsewhere) is traditionally about home and family, but where there is a struggle, where there is displacement, where women have taken up arms - then the position of women is changed. It was a bit the same (though not truly comparable) after the Second World War here. Women who had taken over vital jobs on the home front were not so content to go back to the solely homemaking role thereafter.

Anyway - it isn't only the women. The men are proud and celebrate it too. The festival was pretty lively and at first we listened to a great band - beautiful, beautiful singer. And then there was dancing. I did my best. Ibrahim Dogus extended his hand as the line of dancing went past my chair - and up I got. No choice. It's what I never was able to do at family weddings - join in. So what my mother couldn't make me do - the Kurdish Womens' Festival succeeded in.

Then I gave a little speech - which was translated as I went – and did a TV interview for Kurdish TV in Belgium. And that was that. So interesting - how a diaspora moves from flight, to establishing the necessary food and roof over head and work, to education and careers. And my message to them was to take part in the political governance of the land - be that at council, parliamentary or any institutional level.

Surgery all day Friday and half of Saturday. So many people want to come to my surgery that I am just trying - by doing emergency levels of surgeries - to get through the surge that all new MPs experience. I suspect that the normal demand level will be clearer by the summer break - and I can then work out a schedule to accommodate that level.