Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

About time I tried to demistify some more Parliament jargon. So, attention at the back!

Early Day Motions (EDMs) are basically petitions which can only be signed by MPs. Despite the being called a motion, they are in fact almost never moved or debated in Parliament. Rather signing an EDM is a way of expressing support for a particular view.

Backbench members of the ruling party can often use EDMs to demonstrate the strength of feeling on an issue - it's a way of warning their whips that they might rebel on an issue. That's why EDMs on issues like student finance have been so important for rallying Labour rebels and to press for concessions.

For other MPs, they are particular useful to show the strength of cross-party support on an issue and to raise its profile.

For lobbyists, pressure groups and members of the public EDMs can be a very effective way of lobbying MPs. Asking an MP to sign an EDM sounds quite harmless (it's a name on a motion) ... but then of course the fact that someone has signed an EDM is a good stick to use if the issue comes up for debate under some other guise in the future!

If you want to see the EDMs I've signed visit the EDM website.

Morning in surgery as usual. And then go to meet the temporary Chief Exec of Haringey Council about two families waiting to be re-housed. Both these families have a disabled child and both are desperate to be re-housed because - as the children have grown up (one is now 11) - carrying them up narrow stairs has become impossible. Have called this meeting because have simply been getting the run-around from Haringey Council. And I simply don't believe that no three-bedroom house has come up in the five years that family one has been waiting!

The Chief Exec is there with the officer in charge of allocations. Clearly on the defensive – but also didn’t get all their facts rights. The contents per se of the meeting has to remain confidential at this moment in time - but both families are now well and truly at the top of the agenda. Whilst they have totally different situations - at least the publicity and effort will hopefully sort this out soon.

What I was under-whelmed with was the idea that Haringey can try to so easily wash its hands of a family. It is disgusting. Furthermore, I don't believe no houses have come up in the last five years that could not, with a bit of work, have been made suitable. The policy of having to wait for an adapted house in every case is ridiculous if you are not creating adequate facilities for those with disabilities in the first place.

I have never managed to get 'evidence' as yet as to why some people get allocated what they want and others wait years in seemingly equivalent situations. If anyone can ever bring me evidence rather than rumour that some people are getting round the system, I would be very happy to take it further - but without actual evidence it is impossible to prove.

Then off I go to see the last part of a Mobility Exercise Programme in Hornsey where some of our older citizens are being taught exercises in a class which keeps them mobile and probably saves the NHS a fortune in medical bills. It is just wonderful.

I have been brought in by the teacher for two reasons. One: the funding has been cut and is running out - so a weekly class is now once every two weeks and floundering. And two: there is no transport in the whole area in and around the Campsbourne Estate - so people are having trouble getting to the class. The council officers are there - and having heard I was coming had already broached the subject with Transport for London. I feel a hopper bus coming on. Similar situations in the east of the borough I understand have hopper buses to help those on the estate get to the shops and around and about - so we want the same!

And then – it’s home - and a weekend off. I know - shock horror. I have struck through one weekend per month in my diary - otherwise there is no time off. One danger though – my younger daughter will make me go shopping with her. It's cheaper to just keep working!

Labels: nhs, tfl

Spent day doing paperwork basically: the morning at Parliament and the afternoon at my constituency office.

Earlier this week I became one of the early guinea pigs for www.hearfromyourmp.com - a new experiment in bringing MPs and their constituents together. I've been a bit of a sceptic about online interactivity when it comes to politics (examples of such interactivity are often so poor - same old people mouthing the same old slogans) - but am interested to see if this site can make a go of the idea.

It seems to be done by pretty much the same people as did www.theyworkforyou.com. This site has rapidly become a key part of the political furniture - it's where so many people now turn to find out how MPs are performing. There's always a risk when you put together stats that too much attention ends up getting paid to what can be counted just because it can be counted - you can count the number of speeches an MP makes but can't really count their quality! But the site's done pretty well at picking out sensible numbers and making otherwise obscure information about MPs easy to find. In the end letting people like you keep tabs on people like me is probably good for democracy!

All of which is a way to say - the team doing www.hearfromyourmp.com are pretty impressive. So - fingers crossed - this new scheme will be another useful building block in making democracy a bit healthier in this country. It could certainly do with some help!

Wednesday is terror! The Government’s latest anti-terrorism legislation came to the floor (i.e. the main chamber you see on TV rather than being discussed off in committee) of the Commons for its Second Reading. The “second” reading is actually the first proper debate as the First Reading is just when it gets published.

I wrote my latest newspaper column on this so you can read my thoughts - if you are interested – on my main website.

The actual debate was interesting in as much as it was quite clear, despite Labour and Tories going to vote it through and LibDems going to vote against - that there was wide agreement on the points that should be taken out and rethought. The main questions were around the new proposed offence of 'glorification of terrorism' - which everyone in nine hundred different ways disparaged for its broadness of definition - and the police powers to extend detention without charge from 14 - 90 days.

The others tried to have a go at the LibDems (what's new?) for voting against at Second Reading. If you support bits of a bill and oppose other bits, do you vote for or against the overall package? For the Lib Dems the parts we oppose (supported in fact by many MPs from both Tories and Labour) are so important that we decided to vote against the bill.  Our position was upheld by several Tories who spoke to voice their objection to voting with the Government despite the whip being out on them. As one really great speaker said - it is the principled position to vote against the Government when a Bill contains such a section which is much be objected to.

Despite rising to my feet for the best part of seven hours at the end of every speech - Mr Speaker failed to call me. The way things are done is excruciating - but I will have another go at report stage next week. I did manage an intervention to point out that the authorities always say they 'know' that someone is guilty! Of course - they 'knew' about weapons of destruction. And they 'knew' that the Birmingham Four and the Guildford Six were terrorists! Wrong … I rest my case.

Three sessions (extended) of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill in committee – non-stop pleasure today! Broken only by lunch with ITV execs who are trying to get to know me. It was very pleasant and spent some time discussing the X factor - which I have to say is fabulous!

In committee we ranged through imitation guns, air weapons, knives, searching pupils and so on. I thought I did quite well during what was a long day. Even Hazel Blears looked bleary at the end of the last session, which terminated at 9 at night - as did I probably.

In terms of imitation guns, I think the show-stopper was around airsoft. For those who haven't a clue what this is - as I didn't only a short time ago - it is a game played with pellets by adults who shoot each other with imitation weapons. The speed or power is measured in 'joules'. As I understood it, one joule is regarded as lethal. The Tories put down an amendment suggested that up to 4 joules should be allowed. The logic of which I still don't understand.

However, the show-stopper was that I had asked my researcher to phone AirSoft and see if they minded if their weapons were painted with a day-glow orange ring around the muzzle so that they would be obviously not for real. They said no probs - basically. Hazel thought that was extremely helpful - and I surmised that - despite the mountain of lobbying mail we had all received from airsoft players - no one from Government had talked direct to the relevant organisations.

Imitation arms are a menace - and whilst you don't want to catch out re-enactment societies, plays etc - I totally support the increased penalties and crack down on the sale and manufacturer of such arms.

[UPDATE: Thanks for all various feedback on this topic; see my latter blog posting.]

Another really good amendment of ours (if I say so myself) was about the searching of pupils for knives. The Bill will allow supervised and senior teachers, never alone, to search a pupil for knives. This is now prevalent in our schools and much preferable in my view to having a metal detector as you walk into school. However, the Government had completely left out Further Education colleges where lots and lots of youngsters under 18 now attend for a variety of courses. So they graciously acknowledged that this was the case - and hopefully will come back with their version of our amendment at Report Stage. Report Stage is when the same, but reduced process we have just been through in Committee comes to the floor of the Commons for all to have their say. It then goes straight into 3rd Reading - and either it passes or not.

So we finished around 9pm at the end of three sessions today. Glad to be to it and through it. The first is the worst. It wasn't bad - but being the first time I had led a Bill through a committee it was very challenging as I was unfamiliar with the processes - which in Parliament are bizarre - as well as concerned to make sure that I got all the right amendments down and argued them properly. One thing I don't yet understand - and maybe never will - is why the Tories write out speeches on every point and burble on for very long periods adding nothing whatever to the point. Perhaps it is because they were all lawyers and are used to charging by the hour!

Labels: airsoft, hazel blears, violent crime reduction bill

Spent most of the day working on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. But highlight of the day was a rally in Westminster over night flights, organised by HACAN Clearskies and others.

The relentless drive by airlines, airports and Government for bigger airports and more flights rolls on - and the current proposals are for more night flights. Funnily enough - when I started campaigning in the Hornsey & Wood Green area - quite a few people had complained to me about aircraft noise in Muswell Hill. I had gone to Heathrow to the noise unit to investigate why there seemed to be an increase in flights over Muswell Hill. What I discovered was that there is a northern stack where aircraft wait. Whether that was the cause or not - unknown.

Curiously, after thumping the metaphorical table – I was told there had only ever had 8 complaints submitted over the previous 10 years from the Muswell Hill area. Now, I had received many more complaints than that just myself in a year! It didn't mean there wasn't a noise issue - but it did mean they were very smug about the level of complaint. It’s clear most people who are unhappy about the issue in my constituency don’t know who to complain to about the issue – something I will remedy!

Recently, there have been a lot of complaints locally about increased aircraft noise. In fact last night, my daughter and I counted four in one hour, really low and really loud. Anyway - on the back of this new spate I emailed out to my local lists to try and find out if this was particular sensitivity on the part of a few residents or a more widespread and general view about an increase. Judging from the response - it is much, much wider than before. I’ve put a map of the responses up on my website – and will make sure that people get the address details of the noise unit at Heathrow so everyone can also lodge a formal complaint - otherwise they will carry on saying, problem - what problem?

Back to the night flights rally. About 500 people turned out to oppose the proposals to expand night flights. A stream of politicians from the South West of London came and went to the podium - and then they let a North London girl (me) have my say. I told them about the complaints here in the north and about the survey. And about what seems to me the real crux of this problem - the continual expansion driven by the predict and provide approach of both government and supplier to an ever-increasing market. I remember at the London Assembly responding on behalf of the Transport Committee to a consultation about Heathrow. The constant drone of the government is that if we don't expand - we die. Or rather Frankfurt or Paris will be then the preferred destination and inward investment will cease. Rubbish. Of course - there's lots of money involved. And BAA, the airlines and the government want it. Before the ink on the paper was dry from the 5th terminal enquiry at which BAA had promised no need for a third runway - guess what - they started wanting a third runway.

So I rallied - for us - for North London!

Labels: violent crime reduction bill

One story to catch up on - last week I put down a Parliamentary motion calling for action to sort out the Northern Line problems.

The Lib Dems have launched a new campaign against Labour's Identity Cards plans - take a look at www.libdems.org.uk/noidcards

Labels: id cards

Surgery all morning until lunchtime (I had moved it from Friday so I could be in Parliament to vote on Clare Short's bill about Parliamentary approval before the country goes to war) and then off to Bounds Green School where we Haringey Liberal Democrats are playing host to party training session for the coming local elections (ie providing the tea, coffee and lunch!). I give a speech and afterwards it is back home to try and catch up on my paperwork, emails etc!

Into Parliament so that we can vote for Clare Short's Private Members Bill to require Parliament to approve sending our armed forces into conflicts in future. We need 100 affirmative votes for it to get beyond this stage. When Clare moves to call for the vote - sadly we fall short at 91. The Lib Dem benches are the fullest, with the Tories barely visible and even the Labour rebels seem to have found going home on Thursday preferable to being in Parliament on a Friday. Great disappointment.

I think it important that Parliament should debate and decide such important issues for our country. Of course - the legislation would have to work not to impede going to war if time was of the imperative - but we might not get in such a mess if such debate was mandatory.

Moreover, I am still shocked to find that those running the country (who until I knew them I still had the illusion that they were my elders and betters and actually knew what they were doing) hadn't thought beyond the war. Unimaginable to me that we could go to war without an exit strategy – and all the different scenarios worked through. Naive old me!

Back to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Last thing yesterday dozens of amendments were published for the weapons part of the bill. But first we have to finish up on Alcohol Disorder Zones. This is with an argument from the Lib Dem about an absurd bit of the proposals which gives the area proposed for a disorder zone an opportunity to put forward an action plan and sort things out first – but then says that if the Local Authority doesn't like the way the things are going it can step in and impose the zone anyway. You can't have a mechanism for giving people a chance to do things the right way and then not give them that period. Unless you’re a Labour Government!

So then we arrive at guns. My Lib Dem No.2 on the Committee (there are only two Lib Dems) is a gun using Scot. He has lawful possession of a number of guns and is expert on the ins and outs of firearms certificates and the like. I have some relationship with alcohol - but none with guns.

We are arguing with the Government on a number of aspects. First there is an issue with tightening up on the transport of guns. As John Thurso points out, if he had his gun locked in his boot (which is the only way you are allowed to transport guns) and he popped out from the car to buy something and his friend was left in the car, he could then be had for this 'crime' - and moreover he could get 5 years minimum mandatory sentence for the pleasure – under Labour’s proposals, as currently written.

Latter on I argue against minimum mandatory sentences - partly because we believe law makers should not lay down what should rightly be decided by judges as to particular circumstances of each case, but also because it is another example of Labour being 'tough' without thinking things through. In this case, we’d have a dog’s breakfast of some offences having a mandatory five-year minimum sentence but equivalent acts with other firearms had completely different penalties. The whole structure would become a nonsense - and the Government has promised and promised a reviews and consultations - and then nothing. Sentencing is already becoming nonsense with Charles Clarke letting prisoners go because the prisons are too full. It’s all 'gesture' and 'message' with existing laws not enforced properly and a whole pile of new laws instead.

Anyway - Labour have a right go at me - but I stick to my guns (so to speak)!

We finish around 5pm and will resume where we left off next Tuesday - just before which pagers vibrate to bring us the news that Cameron and Davis will fight it out.

Labels: charles clarke, crime, david cameron, violent crime reduction bill

After the Lib Dem Home Office team meeting, where we discuss our position on the relevant bills going through Parliament, I decide I've too much work to do to go to Prime Ministers Questions and instead head off to my office. At 2.30pm we have the first 'evidence' session of the Environmental Audit Select Committee where we are looking at energy. With the Government raising the nuclear flag again - we are alert to what may be coming down the line.

Labels: pmqs

Five and a half hours in Committee going over the details of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.

Today is alcohol - and we are moving through Drink Banning Orders and Alcohol Disorder Zones. Drink Banning Orders will enable the police and local authorities to stop an individual coming into a certain area because of their 'criminal or disorderly behaviour'. The trouble, as ever, with Labour legislation is that it is overweening and undefined - that it could easily be abused. For instance – the bill uses the term 'disorder'. This is very broad and could mean that rather than the powers to ban people being concentrated on just those cases where they are really needed to tackle persistent and serious problems arising from drunkenness, instead that the powers end up being abused to ban people for all sorts of other reasons.

My task is to argue that there needs to be more definition. An example of where this could all go horribly wrong is when one Labour member said something like - you might get someone late at night shouting as they ran down the street drunk. Well - if a single instance of high spirits is all it needs to take away someone’s freedom of movement, then we are going too far. So the challenge is to try and make the Government legislation more exact, more robust and to ensure that the powers given cannot be misused in such a way.

The Government is not minded to listen to reasonable argument - at least not really in this public session. As I understand it they use all the stuff we give them and then bring it back as their own at a latter stage. Which is fine - if a little aggravating. In fact they have already 'listened' in that they themselves have brought forth an amendment removing their proposal to imprison an individual who breached a Drink Banning Order. Even they realised that to end up with a 5 year prison sentence for skipping down the street drunk and shouting might be seen as a little over the top.

Later we move onto Alcohol Disorder Zones. These are areas that can be designated by a local authority and the police where there is so much trouble from drinking establishments that they have become no go areas at night. The idea is that establishments within the zone to be designated have an opportunity to put forward a voluntary action plan, and if it works the zone isn't imposed. But if it fails, it is. An imposed zone means establishments within it will be charged for extra policing or whatever.

The points of contention - given we agree with the principle of the polluter pays – are that good landlords will be treated same as bad, that there are perverse incentives for local authorities to view this as a way of raising money, that anywhere can be designated a Disorder Zone, that designating an area will stigmatise (or even worse, glorifying it for some?) and many, many other arguments about the proposals.

The Government seem not to be interested in anything other than sloganising that 'we serve the lawful and that this legislation is targeted on the lawless'. Well yes - statement of the bleeding obvious in terms of what everyone wants as an outcome because we all have the same problems. But slogans aren’t the same as effective action. We already have so much legislation that the Government is not using properly regarding drinking and alcohol. It is already illegal to sell drink to the drunk (they never virtually prosecute). Local Authorities can revoke licenses (they rarely do). And new powers which come into force next month give police the powers to shut down premises.

But saying we want a new law gets cheap publicity points in a way that working to use existing laws properly don’t.

Liveliest moment of the day is when Labour MP Stephen Pound exits the backbenches of the Committee to find out who has gone through (or not) in the Tory leadership election that is taking place in the Committee Room next door - very noisily. He comes back and does a little mime - indicating a pregnant stomach and then slitting of throat - it is clear that Ken Clarke has got the chop!

Anyway - leave Parliament around 11pm having had one drink in one of the bars. A Labour member of the Committee was in there and called me over to say how well he thought I was handling it considering I had been thrown in the deep end - which I thought was very kind!

Labels: crime, violent crime reduction bill

Apart from preparation for the Violent Crime Reduction Bill's committee stage, this afternoon I met with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to discuss a number of issues that might come up when various bills passing through Parliament this session.

Main highlight today was the Wood Green Area Assembly in the evening at the Civic Centre. It was webcast - for the first time! Maybe that's why it was so packed - or maybe that was because the Council had hired consultants to come up with a 'master plan' for improving Wood Green. Wood Green desperately needs love and attention - and resources! However, despite pretty presentations and all that - still clear to me that whatever the promises or the master plan unless Haringey Council stops giving permission to ugly, ghastly blocks of flats and puts some pressure on developers to raise their game – master plan, shmaster plan.

Labels: planning issues

Surgery 'til lunchtime and then – after a bit of paperwork - off to Norwich for Any Questions. I catch the 4pm train from Liverpool Street with newspapers, briefings and blank paper and pens and spend the journey trying to work out what the questions might be.

When I get up to get off, I discover my co-panellist, Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty, is in the seat just in front. A car is there to meet us and take us to the restaurant - where Jonathan Dimbleby and John Bercow (Tory) are already seated for dinner. He now bears the ‘moderate’ tag in the Tory party and is a keen Ken Clarke supporter. David Miliband (Labour, minister) is not yet there. About three quarters of an hour into the dinner - Miliband arrives with assistant in tow. We are all strictly told not to bring assistants to the dinner - but Ministers and power and status you know. The atmosphere changes immediately. There is something quite chilling about Labour automatons - natural conversation diminishes and careful phrasing and tones take over. Strangely enough, in the anteroom when we arrive at the venue for the show, the coldness disappears just briefly and the human being can be glimpsed - completely charming.

Anyway - there is a warm up question on Pinter (not broadcast, but done to get us all into the swing of things) and then we are on. First up is the judgement on the Zimbabwe asylum seeker. Although he lied in his application, the courts have found the Government wanting and in neglect of their duty as they returned people to places without worrying enough about the human rights situation in the place they’re returning them to. Shami, John and I all welcome the decision - and Milliband mutters about a rethink. Jonathan Dimbleby asks me if I am encouraged by the Minister's concession to 'rethink' and I say I am always encouraged when the Government says it will rethink. Of course - later I thought of a much better retort, as one does.
Drugs and Cameron! My take was that David Cameron should have just admitted whatever he had done at college and left it there. The BBC license fee (not surprisingly) was on the menu and we all paid tribute to the hand that fed us and then went onto the real heart of the matter on civil liberties. I am not going to bang on through the whole program (because you can listen to it on the BBC’s website for the next week – and because readers of this blog will know my views well by now!).

The show always finishes with a quirky question. On the train up and looking at the papers I thought it might be who would the panel choose to play the new James Bond. I carefully hone by answer (settling on Jonathan Ross in the end) but sadly - this isn't the question that comes up!

Labels: any questions, david cameron, david miliband, john bercow, jonathan dimbleby, shami chakrabarti

I left at the crack of dawn on Thursday to get to Commons at least an hour before having to go into committee for the first session on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. I drive in today - thank goodness - as the radio gradually makes North London aware that the Northern Line is completely closed today.

Preparatory work done, I go to the committee and introduce myself to the Minister (Hazel Blears), who I shadow for the Lib Dems, and the chair - Eric Forth MP. And then we are off. Having had the sense to look how others have started off the sessions, at least I know that I have to stand - or rather indicate that I want to speak after the current speaker by half-shifting out of a sitting position so that the Chair will call me next.

The Minister moves the Programming Motion - which in fact we have agreed anyway the night before - but this is an opportunity to talk about absolutely nothing important for as long as the Chair will tolerate. At least that was my reading of it. The Minister was brief and to the point. The lead Tory was rather more fulsome - and to my surprise made an unprovoked attack on the Liberal Democrats referring to something a colleague had said some time back in another debate on another bill. Aha - I thought - so much for scrutiny of the Bill without the usual political nonsense. But it was just a tiny swipe - not worth worrying about really in the scale of attacks unleashed on us - the increasing scale of which I put down to our increasing success. Then I rise to do my bit - and welcome the Chair, look forward to a rigorous debate, express some concerns about the timing though welcome the Minister's indication that she will be flexible about it.

Into the debate - and I am moving the first two amendments. In the section of the Bill on Drink Banning Orders (DBO) – which would mean an individual can be banned from a locality for between two months and two years - is to make sure that DBOs are not served on people such as those with mental health issues that mean they are not able to understand the orders and so would be liable to break them because they’re not able to understand them.

I suggest that the court should receive a report on the individual in question’s state of health - so that they can assess whether this falls into extremely vulnerable category. The Conservatives were supportive – though wanted more discretion for the court. My concern was that more discretion would result in the power not being used when it should. The Minister's argument against us both was basically that it was too much paperwork and bureaucracy. What I hope - and what the Minister promised - is that this element will now be included in the guidance to the legislation when passed. And this is quite common in committee – you put down an amendment to prod the Government, the Government responds (hopefully sensibly!) and then you “ask leave to withdraw the amendment”. This means you don’t have a vote on the amendment itself, but you can submit it again at a latter stage – which is useful if, say, the Government says it will go away and think about an issue so that you know you can return to it latter.

We trudged on for a while longer working through the amendments - and then the time beat us and we had to adjourn until the next session next Tuesday. I know it may not be riveting stuff - but this is how legislation is made. There had been quite a few attacks on the Lib Dems from the Labour back benchers and the Minister during the arguments - mostly trying to suggest that only Labour have drunks lying in their streets and want them cleaned up. Of course - we have lots of problems here in Hornsey & Wood Green that we want cleared up - so that is completely ludicrous. I would have thought the purpose of all this arguing line by line was exactly that - to make sure the legislation is totally effective in targeting those who should be removed from an area - and leaving along and supporting those who might inadvertently be swept up by poorly written laws.

And that's kind of how it works.

As I went out of Committee Room 12 to make my way to the Commons chamber I looked at my phone to find masses of missed calls. So I sit down outside the room to work through them. Many from TV stations asking me to come and discuss the issues around getting more women into politics. Not surprisingly, this is because of yesterday’s kafuffle. Finish round of calls and go to numerous other meetings including briefing for Any Questions the following night.

Labels: crime, hazel blears, violent crime reduction bill

Just one of those days yesterday (Wednesday)! As I walk into Portcullis House (one of the office blocks for Parliamentarians and staff) my Head of Office hands me a copy of the Evening Standard.

The article was based on an attack by a local Labour councillor. He had taken a line from a training session I gave for women at our Blackpool Conference. What I had basically said was that as these days councillors get paid an allowance, women could think about using it to hire a cleaner or a babysitter – helping to free up their time so they have enough hours to do the work of a councillor on top of all their other commitments. Lord knows it is hard enough for a woman to get out of the house if she is a single parent, on low or no pay - and we need a much more diverse range of people to get into politics.

Cllr Richard Milner apparently wishes to keep women chained to the kitchen - and rather than supporting efforts to bring more women into politics, he preferred to try and score cheap shots about me advocating becoming a councillor in order to get a 'free cleaner'. Labour should hand their heads in shame over this one. Clearly they don't believe in equality of opportunity.

Of course he can choose to spend his councillor allowances on anything he likes. He just doesn't believe women should have that right too! It’s true I can afford help without which I couldn't do the job I do - but I am out there fighting so that women who cannot afford any help can also enter public life. We need more councillors and MPs for all walks of life and all ranges of personal circumstances, including more women. I had hoped that sexism was dying out - but apparently it's alive and well in Labour Haringey!

Anyway - I am on the run - and go straight into our Home Affairs team meeting where we run through all the home affairs legislation pouring through Parliament at the moment. Run to Prime Minister's Questions - unedifying exchange between Blair and Howard. Oh yes you will - oh no we won't - sort of thing. As I come out and look at my mobile for messages - loads and loads. The Evening Standard sets the hare running - and then everyone wants to know about cleaning ladies and babysitters I am doing all this sitting in the Members' lobby outside the chamber - and not a woman in sight amongst the comings and goings. I rest my case!

Then it’s Westminster Hall where hundreds of pensioners have gathered to lobby their MPs on the appalling levels of state pension compared with ever-rising outgoings - like Council Tax - hiked up by many more percent than a fixed income can cope with.

The guy on the desk shouts out through the microphone that I am here for any lobbyists from Hornsey & Wood Green. I am retrieved by a group who have come to make their views known. Of course I agree with almost everything they say and will raise the issues they bring to me with the Minister and with our own Work and Pensions Shadow Secretary - David Laws.

Then it’s the 'Programming Meeting' where the MPs from all parties who are taking the Violent Crime Reduction Bill through Parliament meet to decide how long the committee stage will be and how many sessions it will comprise. Both opposition parties make the point that the Government itself has put down loads of amendments to its own Bill and both of us have tabled loads too. So the seven sessions allocated may not be enough. However, we are all co-operating and the Minster agrees to be flexible if we need more time.

There has been no time for lunch today. But it’s off to my sister for dinner and when I get home - I have to pour over the Bill and clauses and amendments and arguments - so that I won't make a fool of myself in Committee the next day...

Labels: david laws, violent crime reduction bill

Letter to the Guardian:

The call by the Government for a clampdown on information about suicide on the internet has all the signs of a typical New Labour panic (11 October).

First, there's the exaggerated anonymous quotes from an official. In this case, it's the implication that if you search for "suicide" and "UK" that you find information on what to do with a car exhaust and a hose pipe before you find information about the Samaritans.

This isn't the general experience - for example, searching google.co.uk for UK sites on the day the quote was published for "suicide UK" gave a help group for suicides relatives first, then a counselling help site including the Samaritans' number. And so on down the list, including the Samaritans' own site coming up in the top ten results. The closest you get to the sort of sites the nameless official is trying to scare us about is in fact the Guardian's own site, which gets a story in the top ten about euthanasia.

Then there's the gut Government instinct that the way to progress is to regulate and interfere. In fact, the answer is much simpler - get high profile websites (like the Government's very own) to link more to the Samaritans, and up the rankings it will go to. Encourage MPs, councils and others too to link through, and bingo - job done without the need for central control freakery. Going with the flow on the Internet and utilising its own strengths is much more likely to be successful.

There is much other serious work to be done, as the Guardian's story explained with heart-rending examples. But the government hardly helps its case with such misleading exaggeration nor with proposed solutions which logically point to banning the Guardian's news stories from coming up in search results.

Yours,

Lynne Featherstone MP

Went to the gardens next door to Parliament to be photographed with a sheep (not real) for an RSPCA promotion of their 'mark' which will would signify food that has their approval ofr how the animals are treated. Realised after photographer had finished that I had stood at sheep's rear end!

During questions today in Parliament I was desperate to get in on a question (somebody else's) on British Transport Police. I wanted to ask the Minister what action he had taken since the controversy in summer over the use of stop and search powers on the rail network and the hugely disproportionate number of ethnic minority members being stopped.

Then statement in the House on Turkey's accession to the EU. I was particularly interested in this as there’s a substantial Turkish community in Haringey and the issue of Cyprus very important to both the Turkish and Greek community here. From the statement, it became clear that there will be around 10 - 15 years while Turkey now tries to bring a whole raft of things in line with EU policy. There is no question that the Cyprus issue would have to be resolved and that its record on human rights would have to be vastly improved. It was equally clear that this must be the way forward - as Turkey's desire to join the Union is the strongest motivator for improvement and resolution.

The bit of the debate I was less keen on was the constant reference by Straw to the EU being seen as a Christian club if a Muslim country such as Turkey (albeit pretty secular) was not admitted. I would have much preferred the debate to remain on the secular side as the EU should have no truck with using religion as a deciding factor on how to treat people or countries.

Later, Mr Speaker (Michael Martin) had invited new MPs to the Speaker's House for a drink. Magnificent apartments! I talked to his chief of office for a while - and now understand better how I need to jump up and down to be called during question sessions. But it means jumping up and down all the time – even if it’s not really the question you want to be called on – so you end up risking getting called to speak on something you don’t want to talk about or staying sitting most of the time and not getting called at all.

It's one of the macho things about the house I already can't stand. Another is that the longer you talk, regardless of value of content of what you say, the better man you are. I had noticed in debates where speeches are limited to ten minutes that MPs nearly all talk for the entire ten minutes regardless – but not me! No doubt I am wrong to only say what I need to say; but call me old-fashioned - burbling endlessly is not a skill I intend to acquire.

Another bugbear is the way that legislation is brought forward and amended. You would not believe how archaic this is or that the age of technology had arrived.

Take the In Violent Crime Reduction Bill which is starting its committee stage starting on Thursday, You have the Bill, the Lib Dem amendments, the Tory amendments, the Government amendments, explanatory notes, selection order papers and so on - all which have to be to hand on each amendment. It would be SO SIMPLE to have an electronic version of the Bill with all the different amendments and information marked up on it in different colours. But no - another macho game is to make it much more complicated than it needs to be. Of course it does result - as we see all the time - in badly written legislation.

I whipped in to see the Labour whip on the committee to ask him about the programming motion (a 15 minute meeting on Wednesday to decide what and how long each bit should take). And he agrees with me about the presentation of bills and amendments - so cross party – perhaps ... in the next century ...

Labels: violent crime reduction bill

Parliament started sitting again today. It felt just like it did on the first day of term, going back to school!

Much of this week will be preparation for the Violent Crime Reduction Bill which goes into Committee on Thursday morning and on which I am leading for the Lib Dems. This means that I have (and more accurately my researcher has even more) been pouring over the bill and working out the amendments which we tabled last Friday. We will be probing the Government's proposals line by line. And boy does this bill need close scrutiny. The general idea is right - to tackle the twin evils of weapons and alcohol abuse - but the devil is definitely in the detail.

At lunchtime I meet with an activist from Camden who wants to talk to me about why the party does not work the way he thinks it should work. He is an interesting guy, but for all of us in the party the way to get an idea through the hierarchy into being is to demonstrate that it works.

My own success in winning Hornsey & Wood Green from 26,000 votes behind in 1997 is now a training model in the party. But I had (with my magnificent team) to prove the case - not simply have the idea. And quite frankly much of it is common sense and already the bread and butter of our campaign techniques - no miracles. But there are a few specialities - and now hopefully best practise will be spread to the 104 seats where we are second to Labour for the next general election. So hopefully, I sent him off to prove his points to the party.

Then into the chamber for Home Office Questions - terror, terror, terror. It is quite clear that this Parliamentary session up to Christmas will be totally dominated by the terror proposals and other home affairs bills. Great for me as a shadow home affairs minister - but one heck of a schedule.

Rush to Haringey Civic Centre in the evening for the Planning Committee which tonight hears the application to build a Concrete Factory in Hornsey. For those not following this story - there is an application from London Concrete to put a factory right in the heart of a residential area with narrow streets and kids schools etc. Supported (wrongly) by Livingstone on the basis that the aggregates can come in by rail (three trains per week), what seems to have passed the Mayor by is that it then goes out through the community in 56 giant HGVs that have no chance of turning out of the industrial site into the residential streets without chocking up the traffic, delaying buses and causing huge amounts of pollution, noise and so on.

As I arrive there are hundreds and hundreds of local residents with lots of children come to protest. Hurrah for people power! T-shirts and placards - we shout and chant. Ironically, we all know that the Planning Committee is going to refuse the application tonight as that is the recommendation of the officers. And whilst I put in to speak along with scores of others - there is no need to call anyone as the committee unanimously votes to reject the application on a number of planning grounds.

The real test will now come as we move towards the appeal - already lodged. The fight goes on - until we bury this one - in concrete.

Labels: ken livingstone, violent crime reduction bill

I make an informal, private visit to Red Gables. Red Gables is the wonderful, wonderful, family centre in Crouch End - organically evolved over years to provide what users want. And between the Labour Government and the Labour Council they want to close it and devolve its services to elsewhere. This comes on the back of Government funding for 18 new childrens' centres across the borough. Sounds great - except the new centres can only be in 'deprived' areas - but there are lots of pockets of deprivation in the Crouch End area and it serves the whole area. 'Deprived' children come to this centre of absolute excellence. The services it provides are too many to list - but all manner of challenges are met and met well.

Given there are to be 18 'new' centres - which in reality are not new but bits of other services cobbled together - you would think the logical answer would be to make Red Gables one of them, solving at a stroke the whole business.

Anyway - I meet the staff (who are obviously desperate for the place to stay open). They clearly love their work, the place and its achievements. There is a 'consultation' going on by Haringey Council with the users as a result of the huge protest and campaign to save Red Gables. The consultation is with users, and when completed next week we are told that the officers will analyse the data and then advise the Council Executive (all Labour) what to do.

I spend a little time with the children and mums just arriving for the drop in playgroup and then off I go.

At 4pm CNN come to my house to do an interview on terrorism and the Government’s continual curbing of our civil liberties are being raided. Now you can't even say that Jack Straw is talking nonsense without being forcibly removed and then the police using Section 44 of the terrorism Act to stop you re-entering a building. Free speech - certainly not under Blair!

In the evening, there’s a Buffet, tour and presentation by the Community Partnership Board for the proposals (thus far) for the Hornsey Town Hall. It's certainly moving in the right direction and the people involved in the panel are completely committed to the project’s success - but as ever - the proof of the pudding will come when we learn where the funding will come from (i.e. how much from development and how much from public funds) and whether the Council is willing at the end of this process for the whole caboodle to be handed over to an independent community trust - which is the Lib Dem position (along with that of many other people).

Sadly and ironically, I get to talk to people for an hour and then have to leave after only seeing a short bit of the actual presentation (I have the written version to take home) as I have a meeting with Peter Hendy (Director of Surface Transport at Transport for London) at which the top item on my agenda is transport for the Hornsey Town Hall site.

I am asking him to agree in principle to three main things. As nothing is agreed for the site as yet specifics are out of the question. However, the nagging is for: agreement in principle to supply extra public transport to serve the site; agreement in principle to a process of engagement by Transport for London with the Community Partnership Board on the transport issues for the site; and agreement in principle to look at free transport for those going to an event on the site on production of ticket to that event.

As we are also having dinner I get the business out the way at the front end. I have written out my longer list which includes bus links for Crouch End to both Highgate Tube (especially now that it has a CPZ and so more people need public transport to get there) and to the top of Highgate Village. I nag about the crossing for Archway Road opposite the tube entrance where the steps are where a woman got killed recently, the extension of the 603 Muswell Hill to Hampstead and Swiss Cottage bus route and various other issues. Peter thinks the Town Hall stuff will be fine and will respond to me in writing point by point down my list. So business over - time to eat and gossip...

Labels: 603 bus, controlled parking zones, jack straw, peter hendy, tfl

I'd asked one of the Commons Committee Clerks to come and brief me on the rules for Standing Committee as I will be leading for the Lib Dems on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill which goes into committee next Thursday.

The protocols of what you say, in what order you speak, when you stand, when you table amendments, at what point you can argue what and so on is much of a mystery to me at the moment as I’ve not yet done such a bill. So I have invited an expert to walk me through the procedure - which he does.

Lots to learn and lots of pitfalls for me to descend into! He then takes me and Mette (my Parliamentary Researcher) over to the Bills Office to introduce me so that I can 'introduce' Mette. This is a formal procedure without which they will not accept amendments from Mette (as opposed to me personally going over there). Doncha just love those quaint customs! Actually - this one probably has a point – i.e. no one can masquerade as me or Mette to put down amendments to the bill. Can't imagine there would be a queue of fraudsters - but best to err on the safe side.

Then I have a meeting with a woman who has come at my request to brief me further on mental health issues. She, herself, suffers from schizophrenia. She obviously knows both from being a campaigner in this area as well as a user of the services all about where to go and how to get help. Invaluable.

Followed by a meeting with the Beer and Pub Association who want to discuss the Violent Crime Reduction Bill with me. Half of the bill is about how to deal with alcohol disorder - both by banning individuals from areas and also making areas with lots of disorder 'Alcohol Disorder Zones'. This is a real legislative mess and so broadly drawn as to leave almost every decision up to the Home Secretary. Controlling or what? I agree with much of their lobbying - but not all.

Then off to my surgery in Hornsey Vale Community centre where - as always - I am constantly amazed by the range of problems that present. Finish at 7pm and go to my constituency office to sign things.

Get home about 9pm to watch the news on the Tory beauty parade - a misnomer if ever there was one. As my daughter said to me - if you had to sleep with one of them who would you choose?

Seriously though - I think David Davis must have given a sweetener to party organisers to put Cameron and Clarke on the same day. Both gave a good show - but Cameron made Clark look old and Clark made Cameron look wet behind the ears. Never-the-less DD has a bit of a show to put on when he speaks - or else.

Labels: david cameron, david davis, mette kahlin, violent crime reduction bill

Flashed over to St Ann's for a road show and meeting on the “restructuring” of mental health services in Haringey. If this is more care in the community then it had better be better resourced - given that so many people with mental health challenges come to my surgery as the support for them in the community is not adequate. The police, doctors, CAB, politicians who hold surgeries - and ultimately prisons - are all paying the price for inadequate care in the community. Don't get me wrong - the more someone can stay in the community the better - but the services and the support just is not there in enough quantity to support the number of people who need it.

In fact - and interestingly - Haringey is the one of the 'worst' health authorities because they have mental health inpatients for longer than most anywhere else. However, their return rate is one of the lowest. Methinks someone should be looking at that as perhaps an indicator that shoving people out too early (much like in general health) can mean lots of return visits.

I asked for a comparative figure for the budget for drug therapies used versus budget for talking therapies. It wasn't a question the Chair and Chief Exec could answer on the spot - but they acknowledged it was a good question and that they had no means of collecting such data. Behind my questions lies the fear that the Government is willing - as are health trusts - to fund drug therapies but not talking therapies to the same extent. I suspect this is partly because of cost – though drugs can be very expensive - but mostly because they can't measure outcomes so easily in this target driven world we live in. Patients like talking therapies - they find it therapeutic - and possibly therein lies the point.

The other question - even better than mine - was from a user who was asking what choice the patient had in their treatment. If the patient feels better and more secure with a particular method of treatment their recovery would be better. So why should the patient have no say at all? The Chair and Chief Exec agreed that there was no choice!

The scooted over to a public meeting on the proposed expansion of Coleridge Primary School in Crouch End. Lord knows – residents, colleagues and I all campaigned and worked to get Haringey Council to buy the old TUC building to provide desperately needed school places. Crouch End parents, not surprisingly, have been going mad over the last few years over the shortage of places for their little ones.

Anyway - the building was purchased. The issue now is that the site is directly opposite an existing school - Coleridge - with a busy road between the two. So, should Coleridge be expanded, using the new site, to be a four-form entry? This would make it one of only twelve schools in the country to be that big at primary level.

The Head, the Council and the architects had obviously done a huge amount of work on designing a structure and form that would make the children still feel like it was a small family atmosphere school. However, all the work in the world could not offset the anxieties of the existing parents that their children would be 'swamped' in such a vastly expanded school.

The argument from the panel against creating a second school across the road, rather than expanding the existing one, was that it would split the community. But they really didn't seem to have spent much time on an alternative - and the proposal to expand was clearly what they all regarded as the only viable option. I suppose there is some truth in that if there was a second school parents who put Coleridge as their first preference but ended up at the second school might feel that they got second best.

When asked if this was a genuine consultation and that if enough people were against the expansion would that change the outcome, Ian Bailey (Deputy Director of Education) said yes. But it did feel like the only game in town from the way it was presented.

It is now vital that they consult even better - as many people at the meeting had only just about heard about the plans. The main thing, however, whichever way this goes forward is that there will be more school places available in the area for local children - which is brilliant.

Labels: coleridge school

Off to the residents' association for Tivoli, Montenotte and Glasslyn Roads. I turn up for the AGM itself so I can hear the discussion before my allotted speech and so get a better idea of their concerns. I arrive at 11am and am offered wine - this is good news - but I decline until after the meeting. I like a glass of wine - but they have asked me to speak for 40 minutes and take 20 minutes of questions - so wits and brain need to be intact!

They are clearly a top-notch residents’ association who are organised, active and hands on. Cllr Dave Winskill (Lib Dem, Crouch End) has been working closely with them over some time on issues around planning and anti-social behaviour. The roads are right next to Highgate Woods School which brings its challenges in the form of young people sometimes causing agro and damage. They, the school and other key partners meet and have had a fair bit of success. John, the guy who looks after the schools issue, makes a good point that when there is someone out in the street on a Friday night the kids don't do the destructive stuff. One was heard saying 'better not - there's people about'. If only people were out and about more - it would deal with quite a lot of it as well as giving more confidence to others to go out.

Winskill arrives at midday and I tell him that his ears should have been burning from the very complimentary remarks several members have made about him and how helpful and active he is. Dave doesn't blush - but tells me that they are the best residents’ association in London. So clearly mutual admiration!

I give quite a long speech, trying to interweave the local issues around Hornsey Town Hall, planning, anti-social behaviour and phone masts - together with the how they fit into the national picture. I also go into quite a lot of detail about the Government's impending proposals for new legislation on terrorism and why we are supporting three of the proposals but not the other two.

The country wants and needs its political parties to try and work consensually at such times as these - and we are doing our best to do so. However, we mustn’t abdicate our responsibility to scrutinise proposed legislation in Parliament. It is very easy under the stress we are feeling to bring in draconian legislation which removes our freedoms in the name of protecting us from terrorists - and is a terribly difficult line to walk. But bad, rushed legislation does harm.

There are three proposals from the Government that we totally support. These are the ones to make it an offence to train to be a terrorist, carry out acts preparatory to terrorism and inciting terrorism.

However, we are not supporting the Government on two new proposals in their current form. The first - 'glorification of terrorism ' – has far too broad a definition. Such looseness will mean a feast for lawyers interpreting what constitutes 'glorification'. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I can understand where the Government is coming from on this. My blood boiled when I watched one of the suicide bombers broadcast video on Al Jazira praising the act. However, legislation has to be effective or it is worse than no legislation. A smart lawyer will run rings around this one.

The second proposal we have problems with is the one to allow three months detention without trial. This strikes at the heart of the British principles of justice that there is not detention without trial. We understand the need that the police have to get evidence which is not always obtainable within the 14-day period currently allowed, but allowing detention for three months without trial is basically internment.

I am hoping that the Government is genuine about consensus with us and therefore will be willing to discuss these two proposals. If they simply bowl along and say they are going to legislate on those two without trying to find a way through - then we will be forced to oppose.

We had a good discussion post my speech - and then I succumbed to a glass of wine.

Labels: dave winskill

Have been running a very useful email poll on whether people think noise from airplanes (or aircraft as English purists point out!) is a problem in my constituency.

Lots of very strongly expressed views, though also noticeable areas where hardly anyone says "yes" - and a few people who are baffled by my asking at all. I guess if it isn't an issue that directly affects you, it is easy to overlook that there may be many other people nearby for whom it's a big issue.

It'll be interesting to plot all the results on a map (that's why I'm asking people for their postcode).

If you'd like to take part in the poll yourself, here it is:

Do you think there is a problem with the amount of noise from planes over-flying the area where you live?

Please email "yes" or "no" to planenoise AT lynnefeatherstone.org with your postcode