Category Archives: Blog

Bowes Park Community Association

Posted on by

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.

Westminster Hall debates

Posted on by

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’.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Posted on by

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.

Remembrance Sunday

Posted on by

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.

90 day detention without trial: what the polls really say

Posted on by

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!)

Being British

Posted on by

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.

North London Hospice

Posted on by

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!

Terror Bill

Posted on by

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.

Government defeated over detention without trial for 90 days

Posted on by

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’.

Bye bye to dodgy questionnaire

Posted on by

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).