Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

If you haven't been studying law or politics at college and you haven't been a nerdy nerd and been involved in student politics, then chances are - like me until last May - you will not have a profound knowledge of how legislation is constructed and/or scrutinised.

My first real encounter with 'motions' and 'amendments' - which are the pleb version of legislation - was through the Lib Dem annual conference. When I first pitched up there - Miss No-one from Nowhere - I would sit in the hall with my Conference Agenda in hand. In this documents were pages of motions, amendments to motions, topical motions, policy motions, business motions, emergency motions, motion motions - whatever. I would sit there and listen to the speakers. What they said often had only a tangential relationship to the words in the document in front of me. But I sat and I sat - for I wanted to speak in a debate but didn't know what I was 'allowed' to speak on.

Of course, since those early days, I have generally got the idea. The speakers said whatever they wanted to make a point they wanted to make - and there would be some relationship to the motion - but not necessarily a direct one. So it is in Parliament. Legislation is just souped up conference motions really. Of course, they are more legalisish - and so I had to immediately get to grips with clauses, sub-clauses, parts, and much other nomenclature (see how easy it is to slip into the jargon!) Leading for the Lib Dems on two Bills through their Committee Stage in my first session grounded me pretty thoroughly. As an opposition frontbencher, my job is to forensically scrutinise the proposed legislation and then lay down amendments to alter, correct or improve the Bill. At least that’s the theory – but often the process of government/Labour response to opposition scrutiny is, “oh, you’re not from my party; so I’m opposed to what you say; now can I think of a reason to be opposed...”

So for the uninitiated - as I was not that long ago - this is the process a Bill goes through in Parliament (and if it gets passed, it them becomes an Act). There is other legislation (secondary) too, but that's for another time! Here's how the main stuff is made:

First Reading - isn't really reading at all. It simply means that the Government has published the Bill and is everyone's first look at the legislation. There is no debate.

Second Reading - is the Bill's first outing in the Chamber (i.e. in the main House of Commons room you see on the TV at Prime Minister’s Questions etc). The Government Minister will present the Bill and then it is debated. This is where you get your first sampling of where the issues really lie in the Bill. It is my job to find the holes and to challenge and pick them up - as it is the Tory Opposition too. If you read through a Second Reading debate in Hansard after the Bill has eventually passed all its stages you will generally find that the key points of conflict and disagreement are all flagged up for the first time in the Second Reading debate.

Committee Stage - this is when the Minister for the Government and opposition frontbenchers scrutinise the legislation line by line. Only a small number of MPs (those on the committee for the Bill) take part in this stage. It is my opportunity to grill the Government on its legislation and put down literally scores (if not hundreds) of amendments which challenge any and all aspects of the legislation. This stage can take weeks or even months on a very large Bill.

Report Stage - The Bill comes back to the floor of the House (i.e. back to the main Chamber with all MPs able to take part again) and the key arguments are brought into debate again and any new amendments are also put forward (or “laid”). This is in effect so that what happened at Committee Stage is then 'reported' to the House and to an extent, but in much shorter form, re-enacted.

Third Reading - usually follows straight on from Report Stage and is a very truncated last throw of the dice of debate before the Bill goes off to its first outing in the Lords.

I'm not going to go into the Lords stages here - for brevity. But that's the key stages in the Commons and they pretty much do the same again there. And then you have to-ing and fro-ing (“ping pong”) if the Lords makes further changes that the Commons does not agree with. Oh – and some Bills start in the Lords instead.

The thing that drives me mad - absolutely mad - is the refusal of Parliament to modernise. The Bill is usually pretty indigestible legalese. Partly because that is the way legislation is but also because there are so many references to previous Acts and Bills etc - so you need a stack of previous legislation to even understand one sentence. So much so that the House itself publishes explanatory notes - which are very helpful. But then when you go into Committee - for example - you have the Government Bill, the Lib Dem amendments, the Tory amendments, possible the Nationalist amendments AND the numerous references in various documents that you need to make your argument.

Now this is where it gets me. These procedures, for quite sound and obvious reasons, have been part of law-making in this country since time immemorial. And most of the people in Parliament came from a legal background. In fact it is still teeming with lawyers. So this is what they do. They love it. The more mystical and complicated they can keep it the better. In my naivety when I first discovered the horrors of balancing 48 bits of paper to which I needed to refer - I went to the Labour Whip to suggest that they use tracking changes in the Bills - so we could have the Government Bill in normal black print, say, then a LibDem amendment in orange, Tory in Blue and we could all see at a glance what amendments had been put to each bit of the Bill.

Well - you would have thought England would fall. Having challenged the Empire and failed - I have learned to manage extremely well and am now somewhat of the mind that I should have studied the law as I really am beginning to enjoy the real nerdy bits.

However, I remain of the view, there are many traditions and strange ways in Parliament that are there for a good reason - but that the refusal to modernise and use the technology available to make legislation and its scrutiny easy and accessible to more than lawyers is something that shouldn't even need discussion. They should just get on and do it. Pigs might fly first however!

I've just uploaded my latest article to my website - on the PR battle in the Middle East.

If you'd like to receive my columns by email in future, I've got a dedicated email list. Members of this list only get emailed my columns and articles - usually around three a month.

To join the list, just email lynnecolumn-request AT lists.libdems.org.uk

Labels: middle east

Prime Minister's Questions - the bear pit of Parliament. What to say? I could just get sniffy and say what a load of rubbish and it has no bearing on the real world or indeed, the success of the party. William Hague was tip top at PMQs - but a flop everywhere else and as Conservative Leader. But this is the arena where the media get their kicks. They just love it - this macho test of testosterone. And as the media love it – this is the bit that gets the most coverage of all we do in Parliament – and so for many people "Parliament" pretty much equals PMQs.

So although it can make good entertainment, I doubt it helps politics (reputation and practice of) much. I have to say - when Blair is in full flow and horns are locked with the opposition - it does have that same excitement as a bull ring (not that I've ever been) or a heavyweight-boxing match (to which I have been and am totally ashamed of my liking for it).

However, after the general excitement and blood lust has worn off, I am now left totally unmoved by the theatrics. It has lost the thrill of the new - and when you hear Blair's mantra - the mantra he uses in response to almost any question is to talk about £x being put into y public services, with a few other statistics thrown in, and he says we’re on the side of the clichés – oops, sorry – we’re on the side of the many, the law abiding and those who like apple pie. Whatever the issue – it comes down to Labour have spent money on it, so all must be ok.

Even where it may be the truth - it is soured by its frequent repetition and the tangential (if any) relationship it had to the question. And the questions are the one shot a backbencher gets at the Prime Minister - so the least he should do is have the courtesy to answer.

What never ceases to astonish me, however, is how many questioners come to grief because their question is too long. Mr Speaker's tolerance for burbling on is strictly limited and he is wont to stand up and tell off the rambling questioner - who then sits down abruption with ruddy flushed and embarrassed face. You would think, would you not, that if you know that you are going to be called to ask a question because your name is on the Order Paper - you would have prepared for your 60 seconds in the limelight. You know the other members will start to jeer if you ramble on. You know Mr Speaker will cut you off. And you know that the Prime Minister will then cut you down to size because of your incompetence in questioning. And yet - time after time - I see really experienced members make this mistake - obviously carried away by the spotlight they forget how cruel the House is to those who stumble.

Boy Dave Cameron does the opposite. He over prepares. His soundbites are sometimes well worked out - but so studied that they fall flat. He has had some good moments - but to me - comes over as completely false - with no sense of belief behind his nifty nips at TB.

Does this all achieve anything other than the damage it does to the public standing of politics? The favourite answer of insiders is that it does have a big administrative effect – because everyone working in government knows that once a week, at PMQs, the Prime Minister may have to stand up and explain away their mistakes – and so in preparation for PMQs civil servants search out possible problem areas and demand explanations on behalf of the PM. Being put on your toes like this every week most of the year may help improve services at the front line, but I’m doubtful this is really the best way of doing things.

So can it change? Doubt it as long as the boys run the show. It is too close to their public school ya boo bullying for them to give it up. It obviously makes them feel like big boys with their 'friends' shouting them on from behind and jeering and making rude remarks about the other side. Some women join in - but to a much lesser extent. I think it is absolutely ludicrous. But as long as the media take their lead from this weekly ritual - it will persevere.

Labels: pmqs, tony blair

Haringey Council has been forced to admit Labour broke the Council's rules when approval was granted for a controversial planning application.

Uploaded my latest local column to the website today - it's about the good news on policing in Highgate.

You can sign up to get my columns by email by dropping a message to lynnecolumn-subscribe AT lists.libdems.org.uk

So - my first year (and a bit) as MP for Hornsey & Wood Green has come to an end. My conclusions thus far are that there aren't enough hours in the day, days in the week or weeks in the year - and cloning humans would be helpful!

It also has to be one of the best jobs in the world. It is the sheer scope of what has to be dealt with over any week that keeps the interest at boiling point. Being thrown in the deep end in terms of front bench Home Affairs spokesperson for Police, Crime and Disorder (and a list of other responsibilities) was a baptism of fire - but the only way to learn. Over the year I have written a diary of many of the things that I have done or thought on the day - but with the summer break just thought I would like to try and summarise and collect some of my activities, thoughts and impressions over this first year.

At the constituency end, a lot of the work is about taking up individual casework, trying to help and campaigning with local people to improve things - which is pretty much what I have been doing since before I was first elected to Haringey Council. (And it is interesting to see how the political culture in Haringey has changed since then. When my colleagues and I first seriously got stuck into local campaigning, the other parties were very snooty about delivering leaflets, issuing press releases, doing loads of individual casework, having a freepost address, and on and on. Of course, over the years as they lost elections and we won them they have bit by bit copied all the things they used to so look down on. Though it hasn't helped them much!).

So the constituency end of being an MP was somewhat familiar to me - although the intensity and severity of the issues that people bring to surgery in particular has been an eye opener.

At this point I should perhaps explain what "surgery" means - as one person did write to me (in all seriousness) wondering what sort of doctor I was and what I did with all my surgeries. It made me smile ... but the serious point of course is that the political class has a whole set of insider vocabulary - and it is very easy to over-estimate how much of the jargon (House, floor of the House, surgery, chamber, PMQs, EDM, etc etc) the rest of the world understands. So - for the uninitiated - my "surgery" is when constituents come and see my and raise any sort of issue they want. I guess the name comes from doctors - as when GPs hold surgeries people turn up with any manner of complaint.

Anyway - my surgery has taught me so much about the real impact of the things we debate in Parliament. I could have told you that the Home Office wasn't coping within my first month as an MP. The length of time to get an answer - let alone the years to get a decision on asylum and immigration matters. And too many other problems with visas, residency, naturalisation, lost documents - an endless stream of the victims of Home Office failure. Unbelievable. And housing - the issues around housing have given me such a good overview of, not only the shortage, but also the issues around allocation.

In fact, in the chapter I have written to be published in a book in the autumn called Britain after Blair, is based in part on this experience. For what I see is a mish-mash of decisions, with poor reasoning behind them, no transparency and often highly unsatisfactory rules. Thanks to this muddled approach, people can wait decade after decade waiting to be re-housed in a points system where they never reach the top. And then there is the threatening approach to anyone who doesn't take what is offered, however absolutely dreadful it is. The threat is - take it, no matter how bad it is, or you lose your right to be offered again. Anyway - could go on and on - but you'll just have to buy the book!

Certainly, my direction is heavily influenced by my experience of my local constituents' problems - as indeed it should be - but I think most people think of an MP as someone at Parliament and see only that side - or the giving out prizes or the visiting things (the Queen Mum bit of the job). These are all important - but to me it's still people's lives that are the challenge. Of course - that challenge can then be expanded to lobby at the Parliamentary level to put the pressure on to change the way things are.

As for Parliament itself - that's been an experience and a half. I've learned how to lead on a Bill and take it through committee - which at committee stage is akin to being a lawyer. I've learned how to get called to speak in a debate (be very nice to Mr Speaker and advise him in advance of my wish to speak and special reason why he should call me), put oral questions (including one to David Blunkett and he was gone the next day - be afraid, be very afraid) and literally hundreds of written questions. I haven't been selected for a Westminster Hall debate (yet) or an oral question to the Prime Minister - but I'm putting in for the ballot and am determined to get lucky in the next session. (If you have any mystic seaweed I can waive to raise my chances in the ballot, just pop it in the post please).

I've taken school governors to meet the Ministers' officials and met with hundreds of different lobbies who have come about one thing or another. I've put in written questions and done masses of media. I've sponsored local groups who have wanted to come to Parliament to have a room for a debate and talked to lots of local school groups who have come up to the House, had a tour and then get to grill me for half an hour. It's quite different to the other levels of governance I have been elected to thus far - local council and London Assembly. They were more direct in a way whilst this is a legislature - and the immediacy and directness is less obvious.

I've witnessed and taken part in some of the great debates of the day on detention without charge, on ID cards, on religious hatred and so on. I have experience the Commons in sombre mode following 7/7. There is a lot of humour there too - some cruel but some just comradely. The formality and the format are not to my taste - but in the year I have tried to learn how best to use my time there.

Parliament is caught in a time warp in my view. They don't even use tracking changes for legislation and amendments which I find astonishing. So each time you get a new pile of paperwork - there is no hint as to what has changed since last time. But my time there is not to fight the fight about the traditions or to worry about the so called 'male' environment - my time there is to represent my constituents and my conscience and my party.

Labels: david blunkett, pmqs

... as talked about in my latest column.

No - I 'm not quite 'out of office' yet - but on my way. Before I go, just thought I would give you the latest update on the 'Stop & Shop' and CPZ proposals and consultations. My colleague, Cllr Martin Newton who is the LibDem spokesperson for Traffic and Transport on the Council has put together this latest info:

Stop and Shop: The consultations for Muswell Hill and Crouch End finished on 27th July. The Council is currently analysing all the feedback for these proposals in order to decide the need for, and format of, any further consultation with the local community.

It is unclear at the moment if Pay and Display for Muswell Hill and Crouch End could still be imposed on the local community - despite an overwhelming call for a new proper consultation to take place following a street-by-street study to assess any existing parking problems.

We will be looking at the feedback from these initial consultations in September to keep a close watch on what Haringey Council intends to do.


CPZs: The consultations are due to finish on 8th August. Due to pressure from the Lib Dems and local community, a second stage of consultation is now being considered by the Council and this is likely to happen in September. We do not have any details at the moment of what the Council proposes for this further consultation, but will let you know as soon as we get further details.

We will be keeping up the pressure on the Council, and it is important to know that the Council views CPZs and Pay and Display regimes as totally different proposals.

And very lastly - following up on the debate as to whether I should have comments on this blog: due to public demand as they say - I will be experimenting with this come September.

Labels: controlled parking zones, martin newton

Met with local Haringey police commander, Simon O'Brien this morning.

Major success of the day is his agreement, if suitable premises can be found and the Met Estate Office agrees - that we can locate the Highgate Safer Neighbourhood Team in Highgate itself. He even suggested that I should go out with local officers to check out locations - so will do as soon as possible.

This is all part of the wider Met Estates strategy - and my bottom line in Hornsey and Wood Green (agreed by Simon O'Brien) is that nothing goes before there is something else that has been accepted by the public in its place. It's all very well wanting to update buildings - and Lord knows there are buildings that are out of the ark in terms of what is needed for police stations - but where police are stationed is absolutely crucial to public confidence and being part of the community. We don’t want any police stations closed just on the promise that a new replacement will come along some time in future – with all the risk that you end up with nothing which that brings.

We move on to staffing levels for the Safer Neighbourhood teams. Although I hear some 'you never see one' comments – these are much less than before. However there are a few missing from the full complement and Simon says that his target for full complement is probably by October - but the outer limit set by Sir Ian Blair (London’s top policeman) is end December.

The part of our conversation he enjoys the most is when I ask about local crime statistics etc - and whist not everything is perfect it is clear that the police have had phenomenal success in terms of the increased rate of detection. In the end, it's detection that it the first step towards conviction!

Also today had a long, long surgery meeting constituents with their individual issues. Off for a break myself shortly, and as usual during August I'll be largely taking a break from blogging, though this year will put up one or two more contemplative pieces during the month.

Labels: crime, ian blair

Forgot to say that I had an email from the Council about my enquiries on the never replaced, often promised, childrens' play equipment for Noel Park Recreation Ground, which has been absent now for two summers. Result - children with nothing to amuse them!

The email said that contractors began on 14th June (no they didn't as I was there at beginning of July) and that they would be on site until end of August completing works. It also mentioned Groundwork (an activating company - very good) being brought in to work with local residents on further development.

Well - call me suspicious - but I knew no work had been done in the first month but thought I better go down and check - so on Wednesday went down there and found that parts of the area had now been dug up. Fencing had been erected around the site - but was falling down (and dangerous in my view) in at least three places. So I called the guy in charge of this - and he promised to look into it and then get back to me with a further update of when and where and what. So - went back today - and bob's your uncle - the wire panels on the fencing have been repaired and some really sturdy posts put in to ensure that the fencing stays in place. So - one thing corrected and I now wait for the update on content and finishing dates so I can let everyone know.

The fighting in the Middle East is the subject of my latest newspaper column, published today.

Labels: middle east

Have been working with Nick Clegg to do some campaigning to follow up on the DNA database issues I've mentioned before. We've now got a petition people can sign, along with its own DNA petition website.

Labels: dna, nick clegg

Pinch, punch, first of the month and no returns! Constituency matters today and am on media duty as our Shadow Home Secretary (Nick Clegg) is away. Today's big issue is the report of the JCHR (Joint Committee on Human Rights) in regard of Control Orders. It's not an earth shattering surprise – and its findings are in line with our position on the whole.

What the Government really should do instead is to change the law to allow intercept evidence to be used in court. Other developed countries use this very obvious tool for evidence - so why a Government that is happy to incarcerate people and take away their human rights should suddenly get coy about an absolutely practical way to gather evidence is beyond me.

Anyway - later in the day the Government lost its appeal on Control Orders and so will have to go back to the drawing board on how to achieve its aims without turning into the sort of country using the sort of practises that we condemn in any other part of the world.

Labels: nick clegg