Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

My sister and her husband came to Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) today. Given that I only get four allocated tickets for guests for PMQs per year - and these were my first personal guests - and the allocated days were given back in May - we got lucky! This was Michael Howard's swan song - and it was pure theatre. Personally, whilst huge fun on occasion - PMQs is the most unedifying of political boys stuff you can get with all the shouting, barracking and point-scoring that goes on.

Put excellently by my colleague Jo Swinson, the youngest MP in the House at 25, who had Question 3 on the order paper. ('Order paper' – another piece of Parliamentary jargon; think of it like a detailed agenda for the day, listening all the business to be done). Jo’s question was:

"As the Prime Minister was saying goodbye to the fourth Tory Leader, is it not also time to say goodbye to the yah-boo style of Prime Minister's Questions?"

Tony Blair had clearly been briefed on anything local to Jo's constituency that she might ask as a supplementary question. (Your first question gets printed in advance, but normal MPs then get one supplementary –Michael Howard gets more – the contents of which Tony Blair doesn’t get advanced notice of) . He had clearly been briefed on all the national issues that might arise. But he clearly was left briefless - if you know what I mean - by Jo's very clever and very direct questions.

"Yes" said the Prime Minister!

In the afternoon, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I was questioning the Government about instituting good practise in terms of commissioning by the Government - green commissioning. What a wet duo came. If our green credentials rest on this lot - we are doomed. The planet has had it. Lack of enthusiasm for their chosen subject would be an understatement. I was truly gob-smacked by their lacklustre performance and seeming disinterest in the whole subject.

Thankfully, the Minister for such matters, followed on as the next 'witness'. Whilst making virtually no progress (or snail-like progress if you prefer) at least he was enthusiastic and knew his stuff.

After close of play at Westminster I rush back to Hornsey & Wood Green for the Police Consultative Committee at the Civic Centre. The new local Commander, Simon O'Brian is there and gives his first vision for his time in charge of policing in our borough of Haringey. He knows the borough - which in my view is a great advantage. The thing I could never understand when I was on the Met Police Authority was the chess game the higher-ups played with borough commanders. The Met in its wisdom seems to rate Borough Commander as virtually a short-term job - moving commanders on every couple of years. Whereas to me, knowledge is not only power - but the only way to get the intelligence on who and how things happen, I think it should be five years minimum in post for borough commanders and rate the pay of the more senior officers. This post is the one that makes the real difference to all of us mortals scuttling around trying not to get mugged.

I asked him how he proposed to take the 'debate' that Ian Blair (Met Commissioner) says he wants to have with the public over policing forward. I am not sure the methodology is in place - and quite frankly - what local people still want is someone local to answer the phone when they call in about a non-urgent issue. Not an answer-phone when no one ever phones back - but a real human being who knows the area. And they want the police to come when they call. And we all want to see police on the beat (getting better!). It's not rocket science.

Labels: jo swinson, pmqs, tony blair

Planning - especially attempts by developers to cram in far too many (and badly designed) properties into small spaces - is a big issue in Hornsey and Wood Green - as with many other places.

There's a little gem of an official website at www.planningportal.gov.uk.

You can find out lots of useful information on how the planning system works (useful for campaigners against over-development!) plus look up planning applications near where you live and other useful stuff.

Labels: planning issues

Morning surgery in freezing cold room at Hornsey Library! Then rest of day paperwork followed by speech to Haringey Phoenix Group - who help the blind and partially sighted with the provision of talking newspapers, arts and crafts and IT classes and home visits. I have been trying to support the call for more rehabilitation officers as there are virtually none available. Here in Haringey there were two posts - but neither are now filled and we have just one locum. The really serious part of this is that when someone becomes blind, it is the first crucial months when you particularly need someone to come and help you in person and with equipment to get you out the house and get your confidence up. If too much time passes - the fears build and people can become reluctant to go out. I am shocked that this is something that is now provided almost totally by volunteers.

I meet lots of the attendees including one chap from Walthamstow who came on the bus with his guide dog. He is clutching a bronze statue of a mermaid that he has sculpted. It is quite lovely and accurate. He says it is from memory. I thought it was exceptional really. I cannot imagine how you can do that by feel and memory alone. And I tell you - it doesn't half make you think about what you take for granted when you are sighted.

I tell them about how, quite early on as a Muswell Hill councillor, I had an elderly resident (partially sighted) asked me to go for a walk with him around Muswell Hill Broadway. He wanted me to understand the hazards that beset someone like him - and the lack of enforcement by Haringey Council of some of our street laws. He wanted me to gain the awareness of all the things that could trip him up.

And walking with him that afternoon, I learned a whole new attitude to blindness. If the law says that a shop may put out products and wares on the street then the measurement to which they are allowed should be observed. I cannot tell you how many breaches of the law we encountered on our expedition. And hanging goods. And pavement sandwich boards. And uneven paving stones. And old unnecessary street furniture. And so on and so on. It is so easy when you can see - but a completely different world when you cannot.

I leave to run to the inauguration of a new scouts group in Noel Park. I have had to miss the actual ceremony - but get there at least in time to say hello. It has been a real success - and already the scout numbers have increased from 5 to 13. The scouting movement is just still an excellent thing and I arrange to visit the Scout Park next week.

Over to Stratford to the Drugs and Alcohol Service London AGM where I am giving a keynote speak on alcohol. The other key speaker is from Alcohol Concern and the statistics she gave were truly scary. I think we need to be doing quite a lot of work in terms of how to displace the excessive drinking activity that plagues so many areas and people.

We need alternative night-time economy ideas (late night museums and non-alcoholic pubs) and so much more effort in terms of aspiration and how to spend our time. Of course, the relaxation of the licensing laws is ill-timed and probably previous - but you have to hope that we can create a society where it will be ok for people to decide for themselves when they want to drink. The problem - we just ain’t there yet!

Digital Conference on Thursday. I am not sure how I got to be keynote speaker at this breakfast at the RSA - but here I am. The company that invited me - Panlogic - turns out to have come across me through one of their directors living in the constituency, reading my blog and visiting my website. As the research they are launching today is basically about e-marketing and demonstrates that the age group between 50 and 65 (us ex-hippies with conscience, peace and love man) are still desperately caring people who want to engage in issues and change things for the better. I think their research is spot on.

Day of two speeches really. In the evening I go to one of those wonderful old city halls as keynote speaker at the Worshipful Company of Hackney Carriage Drivers' Dinner. To you and me - a black cab evening. I am hand-clapped in with the 'Master' and other honoured guests in time honoured tradition. I get a quick briefing on how I will address the company. Dinner is enjoyable and I am lucky in that the guest to my right, the Master and the Master Clock Maker (a woman on the other side of the Master) are all absolutely delightful company. In fact, Diana, turns out to have been a constituent but has moved away now. She is a wonderful example of the changing face of the city in that she is the first-ever female Master Clock Maker - and that spans about four centuries.

Anyway, I am there to give a speech after dinner. I have crafted it quite carefully as the LTDA (one of the representative groups for drivers) has previously attacked me for saying there are not enough cabs around due to a driver shortage. They counter-claimed saying that you never have to wait longer than 19 seconds to hail a taxi in central London. Tell that to poor Susan Kramer who waited 25 minutes outside Parliament only this last week! It was rubbish - but there is a kind of jobs for the boys section of the trade who do not actually want to reach the targets set by Transport for London. Last year when I annoyed them evidence had gone to the Transport for London Board showing that there was a shortage of 1,200 black cabs and 4,500 private hire cabs. The concern has to be that if there are not legitimate cabs to hand - people will use the touts with all the dangers that entails.

I wafted across the need to crack down on touts, the Olympics and told my David Blunkett joke. And then home. Or so I thought. Having come by Tube, I got on the Tube home. But - hey ho - it's the Northern Line and the Barnet branch was suspended. So I got off at Camden and after half an hour waiting for my 19-second taxi I got back on the Tube and went to Golders Green. No 210 and no taxi. Dying of cold and now about quarter to one in the morning, I phoned a private hire company and eventually a mini-cab came for me.

Labels: david blunkett, olympics, susan kramer, tfl

Still not quite myself - but hurl up to Parliament to be at Home Affairs Team meeting followed by Prime Minister's Questions. Very lack lustre today on all sides. Think House is depressed by death of the policewoman to whom all pay tribute. Is Tony just draining away?

At lunchtime I meet with some associates from Enfield about the proposed closure of Chase Farm Hospital's A&E facility as it will have a knock on effect for us in Hornsey & Wood Green as some patients will then crowd into the North Middlesex and so on. Three hours then of reading and signing.

The debate today is on Northern Ireland and there are feelings running high with the Government's proposals to let go those who are suspected of murders but were not convicted. Lembit Opik, who is our Shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland was to be leading for us in the debate, but shockingly his brother died the night before of a heart attack aged 37. We are all really upset for Lembit - who actually does turn up to speak during the debate very bravely. He says he feels it is so important that even with the tragic personal event he wanted to come and have his say, and return to his family.

In the evening - we the Lib Dem intake of 05.05.05 (called the 555 Group) are having dinner with Charles Kennedy. But - it was private!!

Labels: charles kennedy

Rush up to New Scotland Yard for meeting with Sir Ian Blair. I accompany our Shadow Home Secretary - Mark Oaten - as I am Police Spokesperson for the Lib Dems and worked with Sir Ian for 5 years on the Metropolitan Police Authority. The meeting was private, not unnaturally, but it wouldn't be talking out of school to say that it covered the ground you would expect in terms of the terror bill, Sir Ian's 'debate' with the people over the future of policing; the shooting of Mr de Menezes and the proposal to merge police forces. (My latest newspaper column has more on all this).

Then literally dash back to the constituency to go to the opening of the new facilities at the New River Sports Centre. Barclays have put in £600,000 as part of their program for sports spaces right across the country. Although they will undoubtedly get great advertising out of it - you have to be impressed with the re-invented tennis and football and track facilities. I hope we get at least one kid who comes from Haringey through this system and into the Olympics in 2012!

60 kids from Broadwater Primary School are joining us for the cameras and events etc - but their coach has broken down and they are late and having to come on public transport the rest of the way. Luckily the day is gloriously sunny (though cold) and they eventually arrive and the ceremonies begin. I am there, as is Charles Adje, Council Leader, and we obligingly do as we are told for the photo ops. Two Tottenham Hotspurs players (both Michaels) are there as is a chap from GMTV. Celebs or what!

A great day and great hopes for the future.

Then - dash, dash, dash, via my HQ to do signing and reading back up to Westminster for debate, meetings and discussions. We vote at 7 and 10pm on climate change and then home.

Labels: ian blair, mark oaten, olympics

Tablets working - I can breathe. Go up to Westminster to have lunch with Politics Show chap. Just about survive, cancel rest of appointments and go home and work at home for rest of day and evening. Luckily the debate in Parliament was a two line whip, was reduced to one and in the end there was no vote at all.

(The number of "lines" on a whip indicates how important it is that you are present for a vote. There are so many votes in Parliament it is impossible to be present for every single one and still do all the other things needed and expected of an MP. A "three line whip" means it is essential to be there; two and one are of decreasing importance.)

Labels: politics show

We had a Lib Dem away day - not very far away as it was in Highgate! I spent the morning with the key activists who will take on the council elections in May. We have high hopes of winning enough seats to take control. But I'm not going to say what we discussed for obvious reasons!

Ended up Sunday night at the Whittington with a chest infection. Camidoc is a brilliant service (that's why we need our local one back at the old Hornsey Hospital site when it is finally redeveloped). Picked up prescriptions from chemist and went home finally about 10pm feeling pretty rough.

Labels: whittington hospital

I go to speak at the Liberal Democrat London Region Conference. I, Susan Kramer MP and Sarah Ludford MEP are on a panel answering questions from the attendees. However, the earlier debate is heated and running overtime and Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty has already arrived and is timed for 4.30pm - so I suggest to my co-panellists that we cut our session from an hour down to just half an hour. So that's what we did.

Shami did a truly star turn. She has a phenomenal use of the English vocabulary - and a delivery that is very winning in manner. And of course, she is delivering music to Lib Dem ears - the civil liberties agenda. Her job must be a constant delight - to fight the good fight - and get paid for it! I think she is an excellent proponent and a real champion of this agenda.

She slides through all the terrible thefts we have witnessed since Labour came to power. From Control Orders, to ID cards, to proposals to remove trial by jury, to religious hatred legislation (removing free speech), to banning behaviour as a substitute for real cure, to the terror laws and the extension of detention without charge, to retention of DNA records on a national police database regardless of guilt or innocence - to name just a few. These are not just the ones that Shami brought up - but they are what has become a litany of loss. Shami finished with the shameful move to accept evidence got by torture. One wonders where it will end and just how far this will go.

Labels: dna, sarah ludford, shami chakrabarti, susan kramer

As ever - nearly four hours of surgery at Wood Green library. It never ceases to amaze me how much of a mess the benefits system is.

I rush out at the end to get to Alexandra Park School where I am addressing and taking questions from their school Parliament.

I am very keen on engaging young people in the political process - and so keen to not come over as too boring! There is a terrific turnout - and I whip through the 'my day' and 'why we are the main opposition' points that they have asked me to address in my speech and then take half an hour of questions.

I was much encouraged by their enthusiasm and intelligence. There is a clear ‘Stop the War’ influence in the hall - alongside a very knowledgeable body on the terror laws and ID cards. Several of the students and teachers come afterwards to ask questions that the debate runs out of time for - and I really enjoy staying and talking more directly. I think there are several would-be politicians in the making there!

Onward to a meeting with someone who doesn't turn up - and then onward again to my last meeting with Chief Superintendent Bloomfield - the local police commander who is leaving next week to go to New Scotland Yard to head up the London-wide Safer Neighbourhoods Team.

I am very sad to see him go - as I think he has been a really successful and much respected local commander who has achieved real results, knows all the communities and is a very wise man! I also meet his successor who moves to us from Enfield - and who I am sure will continue the good work as he was previously on the borough and knows it well. I run through a raft of small issues brought to me by constituents from pavement cycling to 'yobs hanging around' to policing in Highgate.

We also discuss the recent police car accident which was fatal for a pedestrian, tragically, and is now the subject of a full investigation. We range over the use (ever increasing and successful) of volunteers in the borough and the 90 days terror suspect detention - now 28 days. I am sad to see him go - but wish him well!

Last call of the day is to Jacksons Lane Community Centre - who are celebrating their 30th anniversary. It is unimaginable now that Jacksons Lane didn't always exist - but I am old enough to remember the early campaign and set up that created it - and all credit to those like Melian Mansfield, Chris Hindley, Nicky Gavron and others who made it happen. Tonight's celebration is champagne, speeches and then watching a production called 'Motions in Time' by Daryl Beeton - an actor with a disability - and Jacksons Lane has led the way in its work making disabled actors a parity in the profession.

I meet the relatively new Director of Jacksons Lane and suggest that we set up a meeting for a more appropriate time to discuss how I can best support them in the coming times when they will undoubtedly need to raise funding to repair and renew the fabric of the old church. The production is great fun - very enjoyable - and then it is home.

Labels: alexandra park school, jacksons lane community centre

Firstly I went to the Environment Audit Select Committee (of which I am a member) to question the Government's scientific adviser Sir David King.

My questions to him were on his seeming approval of the higher of two carbon emissions figures. Without getting to technical – best scientific evidence is that 550 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air would lead to a 2 centigrade rise in our temperature and that is the target that was set.

New evidence seems to point to the necessity of lowering that figure below 400 parts. I want to know why Sir David is seemingly setting his approval to the perhaps more politically possible higher target rather than one that would scientifically be necessary to save the world - literally. He disagrees and states that it should be 275 parts to save the world and tells the committee that he has been misrepresented in the media (don't we all know that feeling).

So here on record he makes it quite clear that we are in trouble. It really is a depressing Doomsday scenario. I suppose the only cheering point is that there does seem to be a growing that there is a catastrophe awaiting and although hardly anyone has quite yet panicked – post-New Orleans and the tsunami, there is greater attentiveness to the issues.

At 2.30pm I go to Westminster Hall again and this time I am on the front bench for a debate on the rehabilitation of prisoners - which is part of my own portfolio. It is a debate secured on the Home Affairs Select Committee report – whose findings are pretty much pure Liberal Democrat policy. And all three parties croon together in admiration for schemes that avoid putting women into prison for minor offences with short sentences – which means they can lose their home and their children and so causing damage far out of proportion to the original offence. We croon together about restorative justice and community sentences.

We all agree that this is not being soft on crime - but much tougher than simply locking people up. I am able to expound my favourite theory about what sort of individual you produce if you shut someone in a room, give them no attention, skills or education to equip them for coming out of the room. Will you have a well-developer individual capable of taking their place in society, not reverting to crime and not being dependent on the state? I rest my case, m'lord!

Of course, the Minister just responded about how wonderful the Government are and how well they are doing!

So today I sit on the front bench of Westminster Hall for the debate on 'Accreditation in the Security Industry'. It comes down basically to the licensing of the individuals and the companies within this trade and follows on the licensing of bouncers and clampers – i.e. a very good thing. But it becomes clear that there is a big ruck between two Labour members - the one who secured the debate and one who clearly has extensive and long knowledge and relationship with the security industry.

It would seem that the SIA (Security Industry Assessment quango) cannot get the licensing done quickly enough for an approaching deadline. To circumvent having unlicensed employees, the industry appears with the SIA to be rushing through a scheme that approves the company - and if you get that accreditation you can employ unlicensed operatives. Well to me that negates the whole purpose. And that is was the debate hinges on. I simply reiterate that the whole point of this legislation for what have been pretty shady industries is to protect us from dodginess. There should be no fast track that evades the licensing process.

Meanwhile back in the Chamber (the main House of Commons – the one you see on TV at Prime Minister’s Questions etc), my colleague on the front bench Lib Dem Home Affairs team, Alistair Carmichael, is holding forth on the Asylum and Immigration Bill - to which I have to go and vote periodically throughout the afternoon. At the final vote we find ourselves in the lobbies alone - thus once again demonstrating that we are the opposition!

I dash to Bowes Park Community Association for their AGM - and arrive late because of the vote. However, the subjects as ever, are traffic and how the money (sweetener) from the proposed North Circular works will be spent. Rubbish, parking and recycling are the other key issues. It is a well-attended meeting and a very good and active association.

I commit to contacting Haringey Council over what they are going to do about the junction outside the old Middlesex University. I did take traffic officer Tony Kennedy there to look at the very dangerous alignment of bollards where motorists - frustrated by having to wait - go on the wrong side of the road to avoid the jams. Tony K said they would tackle it as part of the development of the Middlesex site - and as that is nearly done and I can't see any change to the road layout - I will pursue!

Last, but not least, I pop into our HQ to catch the very end of the local Lib Dem exec meeting. I like to try and get there and this is the first meeting after our AGM with lots of new members stepping forward to take some of the important officer positions.

I rush to Westminster Hall - where mini-versions of Parliamentary debates take place. Members (i.e. MPs) put in for a particular debate - and it is a lottery as to whether you get one. I keep putting in - but haven't been pulled out of the hat as yet.

The MP who does succeed in getting the debate puts the case for whatever subject they have chosen, other Members can choose to come and speak and will be called if there is time, and then there is a winding up by each of the opposition parties and the Government Minister then has to respond to all the point made. So it can be a useful exercise to put a case and have a Minster address the issues raised by the debate. There is no vote.

So - I rush today to watch one as tomorrow and Thursday I am on the front bench for the Lib Dems in Westminster Hall and want to see one in action before I have to do it myself. However, the Tory who has the debate is not there at the time of starting and the Chair immediately suspends proceedings. The debate falls. As I exit the room, a very puffed Tory rushes past - but too late. Poor guy.

Later on I go to an all-party meeting on prison reform where (Home Secretary) Charles Clarke is putting forward, as far as I can see, LibDem policy on prison reform - rehabilitation, education, community sentences. How come when we have this in our manifesto the buggers just chant 'soft on crime'? It is so stupid 'cos everyone knows that prison isn't working in terms of the prison - 60% of prisoners re-offend within two years and the huge growth in the prison population costs a fortune – money that therefore isn’t available to be spent on other things like crime prevention or the NHS. Anyway - always nice (if galling) to be able to say 'I told you so'.

Labels: charles clarke, nhs

The critical parts of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill are proposals brought forward by the Government to deal with alcohol-fuelled disorder and the rise of weapons (use and carrying) on our streets.

I am right behind the Government on the overall aims. I may well be critical of some of the detail - and am very critical of the way they may use the new powers - but drinking and gun and knife crime need tackling. I also think that this legislation (as ever) just deals with the symptoms of the dreadful malaise that stalks (mainly) our young people – some of whom drink to oblivion and some of whom in believe that carrying a weapon makes you cool.

However, one of the key point of the Bill is Drink Banning Orders. They are a bit akin to parents grounding their children - a short sharp punishment which would stop them from being able to go to their favourite pub or club for a couple of months. The grounds for dishing one our are problematic - as one Labour MP seemed to think that running down a street and calling to a friend would be enough to constitute disorder. There was no definition of disorder - but in the end the proposals try and target behaviour which by 'normal' standards would be unacceptable but not criminal. Difficult - but we will see how it works. It will need close monitoring.

Another proposal is that - in areas where there are lots of establishments serving alcohol - a local authority or a police chief can impose an Alcohol Disorder Zone (ADZ). This will be a defined area where all the establishments where alcohol is a prime reason for their existence will have to pay extra for policing.

The idea is good - but the difficulty in this part of the legislation is that well-behaved good landlords with model establishments will have to pay too. The Government as a consequence of opposition concerns has promised a variable charging scheme - so that culpability is relative to charge. But so far we have seen nothing concrete.

Also the Government has refused to cap the charge that can be made - so businesses don't know how much they may be in for. I think there may be some real unjust actions as a consequence of ADZs. For instance - each area has an opportunity to put together an 8-week action plan. If the plan is also agreed by the Local Authority and the police they will then have 8 weeks to take the actions and demonstrate that they do not need to have such a zone imposed.

However, take the example of a good landlord within the action plan area who does everything asked of him by the plan, spends money, puts in lighting, hires more door staff - whatever required by the agreed plan. If others don't do what is required the local authority will still impose the plan and the good landlord will have to stomp up despite doing everything that was asked of him. That is bound to breed resentment and become a disincentive to good behaviour.

The other part of the Bill is mainly about weapons. Basically the Bill, quite rightly, seeks to address the rise in knife crime and the use of imitation weapons along with some new limits on legal weapons. LibDems support the Government on this - and during the course of the passage of the Bill we have sought to address the rise in knife crime to give it parity to gun crime. The 7-year sentence on carrying a gun has seemingly produced a drop in gun crime.

We table an amendment that will impose an equal sentence on carrying a knife as a gun. You are equally dead if murdered by a knife as a gun - so we are seeking parity of sentence. Unfortunately, Labour voted against increasing the charge for carrying a knife. They have a measure in the Bill that raises the age from 16 to 18 for purchasing or selling a knife. But there is no description as to what sort of knife - which leaves the unsatisfactory position of being able to get married and have children at 16 but not buy cutlery!

Imitation guns have become a real problem - but the whole of the re-enactment brigade and airsoft players (a game) are up in arms (so to speak) in case their pastimes are inhibited. All of us on the Bill across all parties have been trying to bend over backwards to ensure that the games can continue but that the mischief of imitation weapons is ended.

So the Bill, supported by both Lib Dems and Tories, now goes on its way to the Lords. The measures will curb some of the excesses we all hope - but we all know that deep down this Bill just doesn't begin to address what lies beneath: what is the root cause of the disaffection of our young people so that they drink themselves stupid and aspire to carrying weapons? That is the nut we have to really crack.

Labels: airsoft, knife crime, violent crime reduction bill

I go to lay the wreath at the Wood Green War Memorial. The sun shines down brilliantly. I am, as always, concerned about not falling or tripping as you walk back from laying the wreath and backing down three steps before bowing my head. However, no accidents occur. My concern is not to detract from the solemnity of the occasion. I am, as ever, moved to tears by the Last Post and indeed by one of the hymns at the church service afterwards. It is good to stop and remember. Somehow it always reminds me of a finer time when people certainly seemed more decent. Whether that is reality or not - it seems so to me.

After the ceremony and the service, I rush home to hours and hours of preparation for tomorrow's Violent Crime Reduction Bill Report Stage and Third Reading which I am leading on the floor of the House.

Labels: violent crime reduction bill

I'd been puzzled by the (numerous!) comments by Labour about how popular their plans to lock people up without trial for 90 days were. My post bag has been pretty 50-50 on the issue - and this is even despite me having gone forth with all sorts of media coverage standing in for our Shadow Home Secretary Mark Oaten - who's been ill.

I know - you need to take with a pinch of salt what your postbag (real or virtual) tells you as it's a self-selecting sample. But normally people are much happier to tell you they disagree with you than they agree!

Enlightenment comes with Saturday's Guardian and a proper poll by a proper company. Not one of The Sun's phone in polls - but a full opinion poll by ICM.

And the verdict? 18% think 28 days detention without trial is too long; another 28% think 28 days is about right. That makes 46% supporting 28 days or less. So much for overwhelming support for 90 days! It's only a thin majority in favour of Labour's position.

So - that makes my post bag make a bit more sense after all! For me, it is a very important point of principle which I'd have stood by and argued my ground on regardless of the polls - but I will admit it's nice to see evidence that there are rather more people with me and other than Blair and The Sun would have you believe...

(There's a great piece taking apart The Sun's claims on Tim Ireland's blog. And if you're wondering about the YouGov poll sometimes quoted - well, that presented as fact the police's claims that they need 3 months to investigate people before charging them. But the whole debate has been about whether or not this is true!)

Labels: mark oaten

Keynes Forum where I have been invited to speak on 'Does Britishness need to be Redefined?'. Rather than recount - feel free to read my conference speech which was on very similar lines and is up on my website.

I hold my surgery in Wood Green, but have decided that the vote on climate change (a private members' bill) is so important that I will have to leave surgery to make sure that the Bill goes through to its next stage. The show of numbers (mainly on the Lib Dem benches) meant that the Tories decided not to divide the House and no vote was actually taken because it was quite obvious that it would pass anyway. What the Tories did that was totally unacceptable in my view was talk out the second bill on environmentally friendly energy policies. Defeating something where there’s a debate and the vote goes that way is one thing – but just talking and talking until something has to fall when time runs out is something else. I think the practise should be banned as it subverts the course of democracy. I know it's gone on since the beginning of time - but it is wrong!

Then I rush back to go to the North London Hospice. What a fantastic organisation delivering a fantastic service. The NHS could truly take some lessons. The big issue for them, needless to say, is funding. So much still comes from donations. It provides a service that the state appears not to bother with most of the time and when it does it is crude, nasty and undignified. Should this really be left to donations to sort out? I left the Hospice really heartened because the people involved are so committed, so dedicated and the service so good - that it gave me hope!

Labels: climate change, nhs

On Thursday I was absolutely determined to get called in the Third Reading Debate on the Terror Bill as I wanted very much to get what my consultation with local Muslims had delivered onto the record.

The Chamber was relatively and eerily empty by comparison with the high drama of Wednesday’s votes - and so I got my chance after about the first four hours of bobbing up and down at the end of every speech.

I made two basic points: the first was to relate back the results of the consultation. The Prime Minister at PMQs (Prime Minster’s Question Time) had asserted that Muslims did not want to be associated with being against this Bill - and the inference was that everything with them was therefore hunky-dory. Well - it clearly wasn't so simple and I read out the Secretary of the Mosque's email to me as it makes moving reading.

There was no division at the end of the debate. Basically - the Government's defeat yesterday means that the outstanding issues over 'glorification' and the definition of 'terrorism' will have to be sorted in the Lords. Now the aftermath of the Government defeat is the running news story. From what I can make out listening to John Reid - it was Parliament that got it wrong; Tony Blair is right. That statement appalled me. The democratic duty of Parliament and the will of Parliament were clear.

In the evening I had invited, with the help of Merel Ece, key members of the Turkish, Turkish Kurdish and Turkish Cypriot communities in to discuss informally with me the key issues for their communities. Overwhelmingly - it is education. Of course there is concern about Cyprus, minority rights in Turkey and autonomy of some sort for the Kurds - but it is here in this country that the main thrust of their problems lie. The attainment record in our schools is extraordinarily low - and relatively little seems to be being done, although some good projects are happening (at least one here in Haringey) but there is no coordination of best practise. There is clearly also a problem with the Home Office in terms of visas for students. The other issue that stood out was the lack of recognition for the Alevi - a faith and a culture but not a race.

So now I feel I have put faces to names and issues and it was a really interesting couple of hours. Simon Hughes MP also popped in to give a little troll through Liberal Democracy and our position on the international issues - which was really appreciated.

Labels: pmqs, simon hughes, tony blair

It was weird! Having been at the meeting with Charles Clarke on Monday - to then see how the changes from what he said to me at our meeting in the morning (willingness to compromise), rolled through the day and evening into 90 days or be damned!

I guess Tony B must have been up to his old 'trust me I'm Tony' - and I know what's best and I am going to over-rule my Home Secretary. Brinkmanship and bravura - but Tony doesn't have the majority he had before the election.

Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday were excruciating I thought. Clarke hung out to dry by the Prime Minister's determination to 'do what's right'. As if we who stood up against the sabre rattling do not believe we are right. And how much harder is it to stand up in the face of fears of terrorist attack to protect, within reason, our civil liberties and rights. I took huge exception to Blair calling any who opposed his view 'woefully complacent.' We are not. In fact, I have no doubt that terrorists will try and are trying to strike again. But it is not the 90 days that will stop them or disrupt them. And how dare Blair use such bullying and sleazy tactics to try and do his usual steamroller. He even descended into trying to say that if there was another terrorist attack and he didn't have his 90 days - all who stood against him would be to blame. Shameful!

And he also said that the Muslim community - the community most vulnerable to the sharp end of these new laws - were perfectly happy with his proposals. Well I asked the Secretary of the Wightman Road Mosque (which is just across the border in Tottenham but which serves both Hornsey & Wood Green and Tottenham) as to their views on the legislation. Charles Clarke had challenged us to do on the floor of the Commons in the Committee Stage of the debate last week. I put a few sample views here:

From the Secretary of the Wightman Mosque and London Islamic Cultural Society:

Dear Lynne
Eid greetings to you and all your colleagues from London Islamic Cultural Society.

I hope that you are keeping well and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the Anti Terror Bill currently being debated.

Having discussed with quite a few members the general feeling/concern is:

we do not agree with increasing the detention period from 14 to 90 days

there is concern about methods used to interrogate suspects - many have been released without charge and are suffering mental health problems following their detention - these are innocent individuals. Even serial murders have rights!

we [UK] have been subjected to terrorism before where areas of the UK were bombed including MPs but at no time did the government find it necessary to bring in such radical laws – why?

The Muslim community feel very vulnerable the general feeling is that these attempts by Tony Blair is to undermine our civil rights and that this type of law is condemned by UK & US as being 'undemocratic', 'illegal', 'inhumane' when adopted by other countries - but strangely when used by themselves it is 'protecting the country' It reeks of double standards.

Lynne - please understand that we in no way agree with misguided individuals compromising our safety. No! This is totally unislamic, but you have to understand that our Muslim community are scared and concerned for the safety of their children and families.

These laws prohibit even the law abiding families knowing what is happening to their loved ones. Our worry is that the unfairness of the actions will give rise to more and more people feeling trapped, alienated, seeing the bias, feeling discriminated against and we in community groups being less able to 'include' or 'reach' these individuals.

I also asked a local Imam to consult with the congregation:

I spoke to the Mosque congregation today and a few times before and this is the conclusion of their views:

I couldn't find a single person in the congregation who supported the proposed legislation. They felt this legislation fundamentally violated their human rights and cut through the civil liberties.

They felt directly under threat and feared that they would be the target and victims of this legislation.

They felt if some one is held for 90 days, it amounts to a sentence and if the person is then not charged and released, the consequence of this detention would have been a total destruction of career, business, family, persons and social life.

They felt the government is going down the same route as France where some legislation have alienated young people further and the result is now visible in the streets of France in the forms of riots.

They felt that this kind of legislations would breed more terrorism and not counter it.

They felt that the government is sleep walking into clash of cultures and civilization.

They felt aggrieved and let down by the government

The younger members were angry and the older members where apprehensive.

So I don't know who Tony Blair has been talking to - but that is what our local Muslim community gives as a snapshot view.

And as to the rest of my postbag on this issue - 50/50 for and against.

The rest of the debate was high drama indeed. I had to go and do Simon Mayo's live programme on the debate. The Labour MP on the show was citing Andy Hayman (who provided a letter of the 'evidence' of need of 90 days) using the ricin incident as evidence of the need to have such an extended period of detention. Well he shouldn't have started with me as the ricin incident happened here in Hornsey & Wood Green and was a mess in my view from start to finish. The substance wasn’t ricin. The people charged were acquitted. And as for the guy who skipped to Algeria – he was actually released after only two days – so even under current laws, the police could have kept him in detention for much longer if they’d wanted to. And he could have anyway been charged with acts preparatory to terrorism.

So - if that is the basis on which the Met is arguing to take away our rights - then it is unacceptable basis for evidence. And - quite frankly - the police do not always get it right. They didn't when they shot Jean Charles de Menezes, they didn't with the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and even Sir Ian Blair got his information wrong after the shooting and we have yet to hear from the Independent Police Complaints Commission as to the findings from their investigation - an investigation which the Met tried to block.

As we went into the vote on extending detention without trial to 90 days we all thought it was too close to call. The silence fell as the tellers stood before the Speaker - and eerily into that silence was announced the first defeat of the Labour government since '97. A strangely muted cheer from the winners. And then straight into the vote on 28 days - which was won.

So - wounded - the Government retired to sort out what line it would take on the momentous defeat. And a real moment for democracy when all sides of the House came together to stand up for what we all believe was right as the balance between our freedoms and our safety.

It's not over. It goes to the Lords where the Lib Dems are determined to put safety locks on the numbers that can be held beyond 14 to the 28 days as well as more judicial intervention. For us 28 was a compromise - and we still need more safeguards in place. We will see how it fares in the Lords - and of course - there are still unacceptable parts of the Bill around 'glorification' and the definition of 'terrorism'.

Labels: charles clarke, tony blair

So - Labour have axed the stupidly biased "questionnaire" about detention without trial from their website.

This is what Charles Clarke said in his climb-down email:

"I would like to apologise for the questionnaire which was attached to the message that I sent out to party supporters on Friday. It was not intended to gauge public opinion but to start a political debate around the proposals currently being debated in Parliament. Many people have raised with me perfectly valid concerns about how the questions were drafted. I can only say that I share those concerns and give my assurance that questions of this type will not used in the future."

He must have really got it in the neck to have had to make such a public u-turn! (Though, grudgingly! - some respect for him being willing to admit it was a blunder).

Labels: charles clarke

First off - several people have asked who my staff talked to in the airsoft community who said they'd be willing to go along with the ends of airsoft guns being painted - e.g. dayglow orange. It was the people at www.saveairsoft.org

Second - I take the point that guns operating above 1 joule aren't automatically lethal - and there's clearly a lot of debate about the merits of 1 joule safety limit versus other limits. I'm listening carefully to these views and also passing them on to my colleague John Thurso who's leading for the Lib Dems on this issue.

Labels: airsoft

Our Shadow Home Secretary is really unwell - to the point that he cannot leave his house in Winchester. So I go forth for the Liberal Democrats on the terrorism issue today. I start with an interview for BBC 24 followed by a 'package'. (That is a pre-recorded interview that they will use later in news programmes about the terror proposals and the 90 day sticking point). Then I go and do the meeting with Home Secretary Charles Clarke. Love the new Home Office building. Lots and lots of media outside. Such are these moments.

Clarke runs through the amendments they will table (or his assistant does the detail more accurately). They are small beer. Welcome - but not the meat of the disagreement between the Government and the rest of us struggling with the need to balance protection of our citizens with our civil liberties. He doesn't wish to revise the bit on 'glorification' or redefine ''terrorism' - nor does he want to put the number of days on the table.

But what he does say is that the Government is likely to table an amendment tonight at close of business which will be somewhere between 28 and 90 days.

Spend the next few hours coping with media bid after media bid. Basically our position is that we will use Lib Dem votes in whatever way brings the number of days extension as near to the original 14 as possible. Clarke appears willing to pluck a number out of the air based on no criteria or logic or evidence that I could get out of him. Later I hear that T Blair is warning us all that 90 days is a must and if anything happens it will be our fault.

Sabre rattling is so easy when we are all so frightened of terrorist attack. That's why we have to stand firm and keep cool heads to analyse what is best to deal with terrorists. I don't believe that the police argument really holds up. There is existing legislation barely utilised - and in one case not even enacted - which would deal with some of the issues and allow police the extended time they crave.

Anyway - at 2.30pm, just to top it all, it is Home Office questions in Parliament and I have to man the front bench and actually have Question 6 on the Order Paper. This is about the DNA national database. I have discovered that there are 3.3 million samples of DNA on the database – and 32% of all black males in the UK are in it compared with only 8% of white males. I ask the minister to investigate what lies beneath these figures - and ask him if he agrees that there is concern that there is racial profiling going on. Not much of an answer in terms of my request - to be pursued.

Do a couple more interviews and then dash off for younger daughter's reports night having made sure that another of the Home Affairs team can cover the media for the evening.

Labels: charles clarke, dna

Apart from the usual deluge of paperwork and emails to work through on Saturday – I went off to help petition passers by in front of Hornsey Town Hall to sign against the plans for a concrete factory in Hornsey. They go to appeal in December. Very jolly - with lots and lots of support from local people incandescent about a dust producing, traffic polluting, noise making industry being dumped in the middle of a really highly residential area. The fight goes on.

It's also a LibDem campaigning weekend - so a whole bunch of LibDem activists turn up to not only support the petition, but also deliver our leaflets across the constituency and part of Tottenham too.

I then scoot off to St Andrew's Church to view the plans they have on display for renovations with the lottery funding they have, most wonderfully and at their third attempt, succeeded in getting. The old hall won't know itself when the works are finished and I am totally glad that I managed to get there to see the 'before'. The 'after' will mean so much more when I see it there. I meet a devoted team who have really slogged through the whole process of bidding for lottery money (not an easy process) and - because of their determination - have now been rewarded. It will be great for the local community because it will offer meeting room and hall facilities, staging facilities and they hope to run a proper lunch club.

In the evening I go to my daughter's school for their firework display. I know Ally Pally probably has the best display - but a mother's duty...

Sunday – have spent day writing speech for evening and sorting out the piles of paper that never diminish. I think Harry Potter must replenish them with a flourish of his wand. I only mention Potter because the excitement is mounting in my household over the fourth film. Live streaming from Leicester Square ensures youngest glued to computer to watch red carpet arrivals of the stars. I confess to being a Potter fan too.

After a campaign team meeting to review and cajole for the forthcoming council elections in which we hope and plan to win control of Haringey Council, I go to a North London Jewish group to give a speech and take questions on police, crime and disorder. Very lively lot! Over an hour of questions - and very vocal. I quite enjoyed myself.

Come home around 10.30pm to loads of messages which turn out to be all about the fact that I will have to front for the Lib Dems at the meeting with Charles Clarke in the morning over the Government's anti-terrorism plans.

Labels: charles clarke

Thanks for all the feedback about my earlier blog entry on airsoft. I’m following up the various points people made (and don’t worry, I’m not wanting all the guns to be painted pink!) – and will cover this further in my blog in a few days time.

Labels: airsoft

At the end of last week, Charles Clarke urged all MPs to consult with their constituents over the Government's plans to introduce detention without trial for up to 90 days. Background - the Government knows it won't get these plans through Parliament and is looking for a compromise. The request to MPs to consult their constituents sounds suspiciously to me like a ploy to set us up for Labour to claim - on whatever spurious grounds - 'oh look, the public wants this so you must now change your minds and vote for it'.

Suspicions confirmed by the absurd email he's sent out to people asking them to take part in a survey on Labour's website. You can see it at http://www.labour.org.uk/yourviewsonfightingterrorism with those lovely unbiased questions like "Do you think police should have the time and opportunity to complete their investigations into suspected terrorists?" Well, everyone will think 'yes' to that one, but somehow I think Labour will claim saying yes to that means you support 90 days detention without trial.

I don't know why - but the word trust and Labour just don't sit naturally together!

Labels: charles clarke

I see my question about David Blunkett has made it into the Lib Dem's weekly newspaper!

Labels: david blunkett

Hmmmmmmmmmmm dont' know about incresing sexual options. The writers of this
quiz have clearly not looked around the House of Commons gene pool lately!

Surgery all morning meeting residents who wanted to raise issues – with a pause for a live radio interview right in the middle of it. Our Shadow Home Secretary Mark Oaten was otherwise engaged - so I had to just take it there and then. ASBOs - need I say more. I will. There has been something like an 86% increase this year - and still it doesn't (according to the radio presenter) stop or deter anti-social behaviour. Shock! Horror! Of course it doesn't. Banning people from doing anything rarely works in any real or sustained way. Tougher would be to really tackle those youngsters as with Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (pioneered in Liberal Democrat run Islington with the Met) where parents, the young person, teachers, police, local authority, social workers, or whoever is necessary sit down and work out an agreed program - and come back to it - week after week after week. Sustained interest and effective mentoring works - but it is truly tough liberalism.

Then the presenter meanders into the territory of whether policy should support marriage and the nuclear family (probably following on from the Tory leadership debate last night). I say that's a difficult one! The world has changed - and I don't know that you can change it back even if the 'wholeness' of a two-parent family unit were proven to be ideal. So I opt for the important thing - which is loving and caring for your children whatever the surrounding construct.

Afterwards surgery I make a home visit to an elederly lady who wants to talk to me about people not listening to old people and trying to get rid of them. Her son is there when I arrive - and I sit down and have about an hour's chat with her. She highlights the recent treatment of herself at the Whittington – and cites the dismissive way in which old people can be treated and worse. I totally agree. I have some terrible tales from the Whittington - and I have been there and met with the Chair and the issues I raise have been batted away on the whole by generally suggesting that the complainant is a difficult person etc.

I will regale you with one tale from my own experience to exemplify what my constituent and I are on about. My daughter was admitted to the Whittington overnight a while back. From A & E she was put in the womens' geriatric ward as the only place with space. She told me this tale. During the night an old lady in a bed not far away was calling for the nurse for quite a while. The nurse kept walking past and not responding to the woman. Eventually, my daughter got up and went over to the woman to see what was wrong. She wanted to go to the toilet. My daughter went and found a nurse and told her that the old lady in the bed needed to go to the loo. The nurse basically said that the woman was a nuisance, always wanting something and she would just have to wait. The old woman wet herself in the end.

It is a terrible tale - but I have other similar ones. When I have presented them to the Whittington - as I say - they are batted away one way or the other. We are currently waiting for an apology for the way another of my constituents was treated and have been told one will be forthcoming. We will see on that one. I appreciate that nurses do a great job under incredible strain and stress. Nursing care - not the clinical medical side - but the caring, motherly side of nursing - is what is needed as well as the clinical and medical excellence. How to make time for nurses to give that care alongside the tablets is where I want to head. It can only be (or I hope that the reason is) that nurses have no time for any real degree of that side of nursing anymore. And my constituent old lady was voicing just that need, particularly from an older person's perspective of being treated so poorly. I will continue to work on this issue.

Then back to my constituency office to meet with a foster care