Category Archives: Blog

Summer Uni at Muswell Hill Youth Centre

Posted on by

Well – what a treat! Went to visit the Summer Uni at Muswell Hill Youth Centre. This youth club was for so long neglected by Haringey Council and closed most nights – but now thanks to work of local councillor LibDem Gail Engert and others it is not only open six nights a week but thriving. As you can see from the picture I had a good go at the ‘decks’ but am not giving up my day job in a rush. The boxing, the gym, the hairdressing and the cooking – all terrific fun and a great way to add real skills for future employment.

In the other picture you can see Akim – who manages the whole thing, and Seema Chandwani Deputy Head of Youth Service at Haringey Council who enthusiastically supports the scheme from the Council – together with Adam Jogee (UK Youth Parliament), and LibDem Councillors John Oakes and Gail Engert – and me!

Equal Pay

Posted on by

Propelled part of the Liberal Democrats’ Women’s Policy Paper into the public domain today – helped by the Today programme – which was a great boost! We ran it on the back of the appalling figures that the Office of National Statistics published about the pay gap in the civil service – where women in some Government departments get around 30% less than the men. This sets a terrible example to the private sector. If equality begins at home – then the Government is shown to be failing woefully.

There are two issues – the one highlighted by the civil service pay gap is that women don’t get the senior jobs – ie the better paid jobs – or indeed any jobs. In fact – only 29% of the jobs in the civil service go to women at all. However, in the wider world, the pay gap is still terrible as well – around 17%. Forty years after the Equal Pay Act and we are still nowhere near parity both in terms of like for like work and in terms of the value put on women’s work. The other unpalatable truth is that women are still inhibited from getting work in the first place (prejudice in case they need maternity leave) and then inhibited from advancing up the ladder.

So the two key solutions (amongst others) that will be going to Autumn Conference are firstly – mandatory pay audits. This means that firms would be required to publish the pay for all their employees (not individuals but aggregated information so that staff can see whether they are being discriminated against in like for like terms – i.e. that a man and a woman doing the same work are receiving equal pay). That’s the publishing part – the audit part places a value on the various roles in a company so that we can be assured that jobs that women are doing are not undervalued against predominantly male jobs. Traditionally – women’s jobs, like say dinner ladies, have been worse paid than the post room positions.

In terms of removing the discrimination which takes place both against women getting into a job – and then the barriers women face against successfully moving up the echelons – we are proposing ‘no name employment’ applications. I have blogged about this several times now – mostly in relation to the Equality Bill where I first put forward the idea. Using something like a National Insurance number rather than a name – hides at least at first sift of applications – the gender and ethnicity of the applicant. Initial experiments show that there is ‘significant discrimination’ based on unconscious bias for or against names. It is basically the same idea as giving children exam numbers to put on their papers so that there can be no bias in the marking. Obviously at interview stage – all is revealed – and then it is down to what it always comes down to at interview – personality, fit, attitude, etc. But if we can remove a subliminal discard at first hurdle – that would deliver a huge step change in equality.

PS When the Today program rang yesterday – the guy remarked that I had achieved the rare feat of being on the Today Program twice in a week. As I said – was it just there was no news and everyone else was out of town?

Update: big coverage in The Sun today.

Off to see the allotments at Passmore Edwards House

Posted on by

Today’s main event was a visit to Passmore Edwards House (sheltered housing) to see the joint working they are doing with kids from Bounds Green School.

As it is National Allotments Week it seemed appropriate because this marvellous project brings together the not so young with the young to tend the soil and grow produce. Not only is the activity healthy physically for both groups – but they have fun, grow real vegetables and probably most importantly – become friends. Hats off to Marion Carden who is the scheme manager and whose enthusiasm and commitment has made this happen. Fabulous!

Naming those convicted over Baby Peter's death

Posted on by

Came back from holiday to breaking news of those convicted following the death of Baby Peter being named and shamed in a media tsunami which has only just (mostly) abated.

Had been on Monday to Bangla TV to do a long (one and a half hours) interview on various issues that affect the Bangladeshi community – chief amongst them – stop and search; ID cards; work issues (my anonymous job application proposal); terrorism and so on. Very nice to be given time to actually expand discussion properly around a topic rather than the usual nano second soundbite.

Around four o’clock calls start coming in from newspapers that the names and faces of the three people convicted of ‘allowing Baby Peter to die’ will be released at midnight. Immediate phone call from Newsnight who think that the Mail and others will go earlier – can I be there for 10.30pm to go as lead story if reporting injunction removed earlier? In the event – we go at 11pm.

The next day the media tsunami that has accompanied every twist and turn and new event of this tragic case sweeps me into around twenty interviews across the spectrum of media outlets. It was not only important that the names were published – that is the law for those who are convicted and is the guarantee to the people of this country that justice has been done and been seen to be done. However, it was also inevitable – as the names have been out on the internet for months now.

So – what do I think? I am late in blogging this as the story was yesterday’s news – the future is about whether change will really be delivered and will the closing ranks, secretive culture in Haringey ever end?

And yes – of course there will be problems arising from the notoriety of these criminals which may make their lives hell when they emerge from their sentences because people hate them and may demonstrate that hate with violence.

My own view is that the length of the sentences they serve is quite critical. If they were to only serve a minimum then the people would be rightly angry – but I doubt that this will be the case as the judge when sentencing was extremely robust in his criticisms and put a question mark over whether two of them would ever come out by delivering ‘indeterminate’ sentences.
In a civilised country with a civilised justice system – their time in prison is the punishment and they would be entitled to protection if their lives were still in danger.

For me, however, the real issue is still around how much safer will children at risk be in the future – particularly in Haringey? I am not going to repeat the litany of all the questions that remain unanswered and the agencies who have not yet born the punishments and scrutiny they deserve. I have intoned the need for a public inquiry and the publication of the two Serious Case Reviews often enough.

This isn’t nearly over!

Afghanistan – end game?

Posted on by

Here’s my latest column from the Ham & High, which appeared earlier this month:

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan. There were dire warnings that no invading force ever succeeded – beaten back by landscape, tribal warriors, drug barons or harsh, unbearable winters. But of course we had to go there – there to the heart of the world’s crucible of evil where Osama Bin Laden was meant to be hiding.

The West was angry and hurt, scarred by 9/11 and its author cloaked in mystery – a millionaire, billionaire who forswore all worldly goods and who seemed in control of a network of devotees ready to die at his command. Terrorist Al-Qaeda members all over the world seemed able to activate anywhere, anytime – a mixture of amateur and superb sophistry and deadly as hell. So – we had to go and fight to rid ourselves of the scourge of terror.

But, did we learn the lessons of history? Did we heed the awful stories of death and loss from previous sorties into this harsh, unforgiving terrain? Of course not.

And now we have been there for seven years and have lost 187 soldiers. They stare at us from the front of our newspapers. Every Prime Minister’s Questions the three leaders give condolences for someone else’s brother, son or father. We pay genuine tribute to the bravery of our fallen soldiers – week after week. And as we stare at the unbelievably young faces, boys of 18, who die for Queen and country, only now there is the widespread asking of why and where and how.

It is as if the country has suddenly woken up from a reverie as, instead of one or two deaths per week, the dying now coming in threes and fours and fives and sixes. And, now we all know a lot more about this mysterious country where the men appear to have the wisdom of centuries in the wrinkled faces with eyes that stare out knowing how it works – whilst we Brits try and win their trust.

We are winning we are told. There is Operation Panther’s Claw – but I feel absurd using the language of games and comics to describe this latest push to rid the Helmund province of Taliban prior to the presidential elections.

So up spoke Nick Clegg and put a great big fat question mark over what we are doing there. Not that we shouldn’t be there. But we should be clear about why, what we can achieve and how we exit. And whilst we are there we cannot expose our young men to death because we don’t give them proper transport in helicopters.

We felt proud of ourselves – that we went boldly bringing freedom from the evil of the Taliban – especially for women from their feudal, misogynist rule. But, as with Iraq, the Government’s stated purpose in Afghanistan has been a moveable feast – from searching for Osama, to ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban, to curbing the poppy industry and drug trade, to bringing democracy and to freeing women from their hideous destiny with no education and no rights. The reasons keep moving, weaving and wafting – indefinable.

Nick Clegg opened the floodgates as he broke the cosy consensus around our sortie in Afghanistan. David Cameron suddenly piped up as did many other groups as we railed against the deaths of those young men staring out of our newspapers.
In the end the solution will lie not with making war, but with making peace – with restoring enough of a stable government across enough of the country that the future fate of Afghanistan can rest in the hands of those Afghanis who do not see the future as one of perpetual war with their neighbours.

Two years since the Baby Peter tragedy

Posted on by

A spate of phone calls and texts from the media remind me that it is two years since Baby Peter was ‘allowed to die’. The anniversaries will come and go. The investigations, inspections and reports come and go. But what will really change?

The fear that haunts me is that the words are easy – ‘lessons must be learnt’ – but we heard that beating of the chest and wringing of hands post Victoria Climbie – but nothing much actually changed at Haringey Council. New processes were brought in post Lord Laming’s inquiry – but the culture of Haringey didn’t change one iota. It remained arrogant, unwilling to let in the light scrutiny – or even to be questioned. That defensiveness, secrecy and closing of ranks allowed a second tragedy of immense proportion to take place despite the promises that lessons would be learned.

What I think is that unless and until processes take place in a culture that is open, welcoming of questioning and where people do their own job to the highest standard possible (not relying on tick boxes but on conscience, good training and supervision) it could all happen again. I fear that some of the investigations and recommendations, followed by numerous action plans and inspections feel like lots is being done – but real change can only come from leadership at every level.

Sadly, secrecy prevails. The Government refuses to hold a public inquiry. The Government refuses to publish the (now two) Serious Case Reviews.

We still need that inquiry. Whilst Haringey, quite rightly, was held firmly in the spotlight of blame as the lead agency, the other agencies have had relatively scant focus. They have contributed their reports to the investigations – but the pressure is not so focused.

In terms of health – the managers at Great Ormond Street who refused to take the concerns of four paediatric consultants seriously (the four who signed a letter to the management flagging up the dangers for children because management were not listening) are still in place.

Ofsted, who inspected Haringey at the time of Baby Peter and gave them a three star rating which plummeted to one star post Baby Peter scandal, have got away virtually scot free.

The police, whose poor handovers and missing files led to the Crown Prosecution Service saying that had this been done properly they might have been able to bring an early conviction, are out of the limelight. And so on and so on.

Ed Balls says he doesn’t want to publish the Serious Case Review – even though this would allow professionals right across the country in all the agencies to witness the litany of failures, both personal and systemic – and so learn for their own services and their own work.

The shock of that document (which I am still forbidden to speak about – and I only saw the first one not the second one re-commissioned by Balls) is the casualness with which people did their jobs. To most people, if a child is on an at risk register – we would expect more rigour and absolute professionalism around such care. What we see is lots small failures: files lost, people not attending important meetings, missed appointments unchecked and unquestioned, inadequate or no handovers, etc etc etc.

How can lessons be learned when the details of what went wrong and how and why are kept secret?

So – I plough on trying to get things out in the open and done publicly. That is the first step only in my view. In Haringey, at least, the people have changed. The accountable people have actually lost their jobs – which at least sends the message that there is a point to the position – that there is responsibility and consequences. But as I say – in the end the two things I believe would offer better protection are a change in culture and the reinstatement of personal responsibility within any function – above and beyond putting a tick in a box.

To be or not to be?

Posted on by

Of course there should be a debate between the main party leaders. It would put them on their metal in front of the nation – where we pick up all kinds of signals (most of which have little to do with policy) and see how they deal with pressure under fire. One of the problems, however, is that the conditions that are put down before someone like the PM will take part will probably sterilise the process – perhaps even to the point of pointlessness – and the ‘dealing with pressure under’ fire is totally minimised. Secondly – the incumbent has the advantage of office and so never really wants to give the others the exposure – let alone give them a chance to outshine them. And – given Gordon Brown’s cowardice quota (as Chancellor he used to let his junior ministers take the difficult questions at Treasury Questions) it is hard to imagine he will grow the balls to get out there and fight.

But as for someone who loves getting out there and fighting the fight – I have a confession, I’m a bit of a fan of Peter Mandelson. I know – you’re not meant to say things like that and no – I don’t agree with his policies etc etc etc. But this guy is clever, clever, clever – and a real operator.

Although I knew that he ditched Brown for Blair in the leadership contest – and therefore was never to be forgiven – I hadn’t really fully appreciated his Machiavellian talents fully. I just hope that he is keeping extensive and honest notes – because if his autobiography tells the truth one day – it will be the most fascinating read ever.

I remember doing the Westminster Hour on a Sunday night the week that Gordon announced his was bringing Mandelson back from Europe, popping him into the Lords and making him Business Minister. I said that I had been completely taken aback by the move because it was brave, clever, shocking and I didn’t think Gordon had the balls to have the vision to take this brilliant strategic move. Retrospectively, I am now sure that it was Mandelson’s proposal – not Brown’s. And of course – you have to pay the piper – which is why Mandelson now sits on all the important Government committees and pulls the strings. Where will his rise and rise end? Will we see him come back to lead the Labour Party post Brown?

Troubles at the Equality and Human Rights Commission

Posted on by

Thought I’d pitch in with my thoughts on the troubled Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I remember being on the London board of the original Commission for Racial Equality when this new all singing, all dancing Equality Commission was first mooted. All the race bodies and leaders of different groups in the community were against it – including Trevor Phillips. The leaders of the other commissions (women and disability) were all against it – as they all appeared to resent to some degree (and not surprisingly) giving up their leadership positions and becoming commissioners under someone else – particularly when that someone else turned out to be Mr Phillips. There was also genuine concern that the clear fight for a particular cause would be muddied and subsumed by being part of a greater whole. And there was fear and competitiveness as to whether the Chair would give more attention to race (as that was his background) and would that leave women, disability, sexual orientation and so on playing catch up.

Nevertheless – the new Equality and Human Rights Commission came into being, chaired by Trevor Phillips, who hired as the new CEO Nicola Brewer, and is now about 18 months old. Ms Brewer has recently left for a plum job as South Africa High Commissioner.

There was always going to be trouble at mill. Lots of old scores, egos and enemies all thrust into one body would inevitably lead to jealousy, noses out of joint and undoubtedly the real feeling of being ignored when it came to some decisions.

In terms of the tide of resigning commissioners – there are some who are and have been phenomenal campaigners, leaders and experts in their particular field – and there are some that may simply be crumbs fighting.The severe reduction in number of commissioners which is coming, and the fact that they all have to reapply for their jobs, may also play a part in their ‘brave’ decision to go at this point.

What I don’t understand is if it has been so dreadful why none of them really rocked the boat prior to the possibility of losing their jobs? It’s one of the reasons I think that if Trevor Phillips survives this debacle new blood might be a very good thing. Well – there will be blood on the carpet – that’s for sure.

However, there is always a difficult balance to strike when people have championed causes and been instrumental in moving forward the agenda on whichever equality is their drum to beat. The problems arise, I think, in twofold ways. Firstly – if you have banged a drum for years and years – it is very difficult to change the way you beat it or the repertoire that you play. Secondly, Trevor Phillips appears to have trodden on many other egos to make announcements, change direction, challenge the status quo – without consultation or agreement. That too is a difficult balance to strike – leadership versus consultation. Phillips has clearly got it wrong in terms of Commissioners’ feelings and also, perhaps, his style of leadership. On the other hand – there are such major challenges for this country in terms of equalities – taking the agenda boldly where no one has gone before may require such leadership and saying the unsayable.

Phillips has been right on some things like changing multiculturalism – or aspects around it. He said we were sleepwalking into segregation – and that did change the multicultural weather. Councils who for so long had funded so many different communities – funding separateness – have started to fund togetherness instead. Critics turned that into Phillips wanting to attack multiculturalism – but it wasn’t – it was acknowledging that what was once good policy had had its day.

My main anger with the EHRC is that it is compliant with the Labour agenda – not independent enough. Women have been the sacrificial lambs that Phillips has happily led to slaughter in the Equalities Bill . But Harriet Harman lost in cabinet to Mandelson on that – ergo women can just wait for equality. Trevor Phillips is a Labour man and won’t really challenge the Government.

The other main complaint is that the EHRC is just dreadful at answering mail – both in terms of getting an answer – and the content when it finally comes. However, I would lay this at the door of the ex-Chief Executive. It was Nicola Brewer’s job as Chief Officer to run the Commission – and she singular failed in terms of efficiency on this score alone.

It’s not just growing pains that have caused the hoo ha at the EHRC. There are real problems that need sorting – and fast. With Brewer gone – and about six commissioners gone – who knows whether Trevor Phillips will survive. Having just signed a new three year contract for his job – and with Government backing – he may do. If he does – he has one hell of a lot of mending to do – and perhaps a little bit of humility might help.

Three years to the Olympics

Posted on by

So three years to go. I remember the day we won the bid. I was standing outside the back of the Chamber at the House of Commons – behind the Speaker’s Chair. There was that long hesitation in the announcement – as we strained to hear whether it would be a P for Paris or L for London. And when it was London – I heard a cheer go up from within the Chamber. It wasn’t dignified or Parliamentary – but totally appropriate.

I remember too – when the first inklings of our bid were swirling around the London Assembly. For it originally was Ken Livingstone, Richard Sumray and others who pushed and pushed and worked up a scheme – and who then bullied / persuaded the Government (Blair) into supporting it. Blair, once on board, played a blinder by turning up personally to the selection event.

Anyway here we are – three years away from the most exciting sporting event in this country since – well since we won the ’66 World Cup. And I know it’s expensive. And I don’t think they have made enough effort to ensure that we all benefit from the games in all our locals – whether by training facilities, grants to train kids up for the 2012 Olympics or whatever – but it will still be phenomenal for London.

Parking tickets and fines

Posted on by

Lots in the news on parking and the unfairness of half the tickets seemingly issued. Quite right too. I have always been a great supporter of parking regulations and proper enforcement – when the purpose is safety, traffic flow, helping businesses by providing a steady flow of parking spaces through the day (i.e. by stopping people taking up a space all day) and so on – but above all where those plans are suitable for the local circumstances and have been properly consulted on.

It is difficult to be a supporter, however, as the reality on the ground is so often just the opposite of the benefits promised: tickets issued wrongly, cameras positioned to rake in revenue, CPZs badly designed, confusing signing which seems to serve only to trap the innocent to making a mistake – and the good guys who find a meter and pay the tariff and get back a minute late find they have the same astronomical fine – and the bastard who parks dangerously on yellow lines, has no insurance and no license gets away with not paying their ticket.

If we are to continue to support proper regulation then it’s time councils got their act together. Wardens need proper training and common sense – that would be a start. Councils that issue tickets wrongly should be fined in proportion to that number – and that is quite substantial. Basically – the good motorist should not find that they are put to time and trouble to fight a ticket that shouldn’t have been issued or is the result of poor signing or warden error!

When I was Chair of Transport in London I carried out an investigation of parking enforcement in London – and found so many faults with the system that we made dozens of recommendations to improve and make fair this system which is now falling into disrepute and which makes the good citizen very, very angry.

One of the recommendations was about the relative ‘crimes’ of being a minute over on a meter compared with say two hours. Westminster Council took up the recommendation that the lower offence receive a lower fine. There are still many other good recommendations in that report which are clearly still badly needed if we are to have a fair system.

And yes – we should all try and use public transport more and cars less – but when people do use their cars they should be treated fairly.