Category Archives: Blog

Helicopters in Afghanistan

Posted on by

Listening carefully to the row over helicopters – the provision of which (if adequate) would stop our troops having to be transported in USA reject land vehicles over mines and bombs that blow up and kill our young soldiers – I remembered Harriet Harman’s words last PMQs:

Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must do everything possible to ensure the greatest protection for our troops in the field, and there is no complacency about that. We have increased the number of armoured vehicles that have been procured for and made available to our troops, but we are not going to be complacent and there must be more. We have increased the number of helicopters by 60 per cent. over the past two years, but we recognise that we should do more. We want to do more not only for their personal protection but in recognition of the importance of their mission in Afghanistan, not only to that country but to the region and to the security of this country.

As you can see – Harriet claims increased helicopter numbers by 60% – but she is being disingenuous – because the sorts of helicopters she is talking about cannot transport troops – they are attack helicopters. It is the Chinooks that we need to carry our troops safely.

I do not understand how a minister of the state like Harriet can think that such an answer is acceptable. She knows perfectly well that she is avoiding a proper answer which would have been: ‘we have increased our attack helicopters by 60%, but the honourable member is right, we have not provided any more of the type of helicopters that can transport troops – or we have provided x more troop carrying helicopters.’

Bad karma Harriet!

Nick live and online!

Posted on by

Well – it went relatively well – the Nick Clegg /Reuters cyber-experiment. I was in LibDem HQ – which Helen Duffett (in charge of technology on the day) had renamed the ‘grass roots green room’ from whence we submitted questions along with the rest of the country. Yes – there were glitches – there always are when you do this stuff. But I always think it is a bit like hand-held camera work – makes it real.

I remember being on 18 Doughty Street the night that Iain Dale launched his brave attempt at a proper political TV station. It would be too strong to say that nothing went right – but not far off! It still developed into a very professional show in the end. Anyway – I digress.

Hundreds of questions poured in through Twitter, 12 second TV and various other routes. The real lesson from the show was that for this media – although it might feel like a normal TV interview in that the presenters present the questions and Nick answered – it is a medium that demands soundbites rather than discursive response. Given someone had to pick the key points in Nick’s answers – best to reduce the choice of piece to reproduce by ensuring snappy relevant responses.

And example would be someone who twittered in a question as to whether Nick thought we should change our name back to Liberals – or something like that. He gave a good answer based on consideration of where we are now and why that wouldn’t be appropriate. Personally I think he should have just said ‘no’!. Short answers are good on something like this. And even on the more complex issues the shorter the better.

That would be main lesson from next time – and we (in the activists room) thought also that it might add to the show if you had a panel of MPs blogging answers to the dozens of questions that didn’t get answered so that more people felt they had played a part and more questions got answered – leaving Nick to do the selected ones!

But a good effort – and I am sure we will and should do loads more of this type of broadcast.

Problems don't stop at 18, so why should support?

Posted on by

This week I also visited a local charity in my constituency called Open Door. I had visited them soon after I was elected in 2005 and this was a visit to see how things were going. They do invaluable work with young people who have real problems and need support. Therapists work with individuals one by one, using talking therapies to help them back to being able to get on with their lives. This is critical work and naturally they need more funding – and deserve it, as I firmly believe it is this sort of investment in young people that later on pays back and then some. It is so easy to lose your way for one reason or another, and talking therapies are in my view one of the very best ways to support a young person so that they can cope with the rest of their lives.

The Government did allocate £175 million recently for cognitive behavioural therapy – but that is a short-term solution, not suitable for many deep seated problems and finally – no-one knows exactly how much of that money has actually filtered through to those in need. I am putting down a Parliamentary Question to find out where that money has gone. My fear is that it gets as far as the the PCT (health trust) and may then be lost in budgets. We will see.

One important fact jumped out at me during my visit – which was that the work stops at 18. Problems don’t stop at 18. And during that critical 18-25 period for young people there is virtually nothing out there. So – I am writing to the Minister to find out what you do if you are in that age bracket and you need the sort of long term help that talking therapies and constant individual support can bring.

On Saturday I cut the ribbon starting Haringey’s Relay For Life event. It took place in Albert Recreation grounds and was part of Cancer UK’s fundraising – taking part all over the country. A lot of organisation was needed to get the teams together – local people formed into teams to walk, jog or run round and round the grounds for 22 hours! Tents were pitched in the park for those taking part so they could get some sleep.

The Friends of Albert Park, the organising committee and Cancer Research – not to forget the park’s cafe – all worked incredibly hard to get this event together. Those of us who have had family members with cancer, or ourselves had cancer, know how important the work is.

My father died of cancer when I was fifteen and my mother had four types of cancer before she died around eighteen years ago. Cancer UK’s work has meant that nowadays – as opposed to when my parents died – many cancers are curable or treatable – and it is no longer necessarily the death sentence it sadly often was in those days. But there is a long way to go before all cancer sufferers survival rates are at a level where it is just another illness.

So congratulations to all who took part and all who organised such a great event. I hope they raised a shed load!

Just to demonstrate the variety in an MPs life – I then went onto a community event put on by MTO Shahmaghsuoudi, School of Islamic Sufism. This temple in the heart of Crouch End is a school of Sufism and is attended every Thursday by people from all over this part of England who come to study with their Masters.

When I arrived they were in the middle of Sufi chanting, which goes on for about fifteen minutes. Then we were broken up into four groups and taken around the temple and we had explained to us the meanings of the art works of many types, the calligraphy, the decoration and the genealogy and traditions of Islamic Sufism. Then they brought out a buffet of lovely food and refreshments.

The opening of doors to the local community by such groups I always think is a brilliant idea – as most of us know relatively little and knowing what goes on behind the doors and engaging in the local community is part of being in the community.

I spent some time chatting to one young woman (from Oxford) who had been of no religion until she encountered Sufism – and she said it had changed her life completely. I didn’t understand all that was said – but one thing I heartily approved of was the idea that women and men were entirely equal and that spirituality has no gender!

Salad days!

Posted on by

Here’s my latest column for the Highgate Handbook and Muswell Hill Flyer:

It is that time of year – when I get invited to all the wonderful summer activities that local people put on. Street parties, summer fairs, school fetes, strawberry teas, horticultural shows, carnivals and parades nearly takeover my engagements diary over these summer weeks.

The Fair in the Square in Highgate was a raging success. The sun shone and it was thronging with smiling people. Stalls galore and food and drink was flowing. There were entertainments for children and friends and neighbours strolling around – just like a picture book really.

My role was to judge the dog competition. Images of the judges at Crufts came to mind in advance – feeling haunches and judging stance were my only knowledge of dog competitions. Happily this wasn’t required and I had two co-judges – knowledgeable about dogs – to help.

When I saw the categories – any nervousness about my ability to tell a ‘good’ dog from a less good one evaporated. The first category was a looky likey one – i.e. how alike dog and owner were. And there were two that really were almost identikits of each other – and I mean that in the nicest way! There was even one game lady who had covered her face with false tufts of hair to look like her dog. And there was cutest dog, waggiest tail dog, best behaved dog and best looking dog – so I needn’t have worried about my professional judging ability after all.

The Hillfield Park Olympic Games are another annual must attend – as one of the oldest and best developed of street parties that I go to. During the day there is fun and games – mainly for the children with races, dog agility courses, football dribbling and so on – culminating in the whole street – and neighbouring street – ones mucking in for a tug of war.

One of the outstanding races of the day is the bike race up the hill. Hillfield Park has a gradient to die for – this is tough, tough fun. I don’t know how anyone could get up it on a bike at all – but they do. In threes – as the ‘Olympics’ are always done in teams (red, blue and white) – both children and adults attack the hill – and most do arrive at the top. The evening is full of music and food and fun.

And such a successful party – as with the Highgate Fair – and all the shows and events over this period (too many to list them all) owe everything to those who do a mammoth amount of work to make the events the wonderful success that they are.

Congratulations to everyone in Highgate and Muswell Hill who have put in so much effort and love to giving all of us such a good time. Have a happy rest of summer!

Last Session of Equality Bill

Posted on by

The 19th and 20th sitting of the Equality Bill. Hurrah – the last chapter – at least of the Bill Committee.

The big issue of the morning session was my amendment – well new clause – which would insert an Equality Guarantee into the Bill. The problem with the Bill is that it is very prescriptive. The protection from discrimination is delivered to strands – otherwise known as ‘protected characteristics’. As have explained before – these are things like race, gender, sex, sexual orientation and so on. What the Bill doesn’t do is guarantee equality and protection from discrimination if you fall outside of the very precise prescriptions within the Bill. Hence the Equality and Human Rights Commission lobbied for the inclusion of an over-arching Equality Guarantee.

Both Labour and Tories just picked it to pieces in terms of the minutiae of relatively small technical matters or drafting – clever dick stuff – but ignoring the key point. And as I said in Committee – the Bill lacks any real vision for equality on the wider scale. It brings together existing legislation in one place and makes some progress in terms of equality but not much. An Equality Guarantee is very similar to the Human Rights Act in that it gives overarching protection against inalienable rights. But no – how dare I suggest that the legislation might not be perfect and there be any situation or unintended consequence that would allow a Law Lord ten years down the track to make a judicial decision that would undo all the good that was intended in this Bill.

But this is exactly what happened to the Disability Discrimination Act. I am referring to what is called the ‘Malcolm’ case. Without going into long explanations – the Disability Discrimination Act came into being to protect people with disabilities from discrimination. In the Malcolm case the Law Lords made a decision that totally undermined and screwed up the entire intention of that Act. It has taken three years to sort out – and thousands of people with disabilities were put at risk by the intention of the Bill not being clear. Hence an overarching Equality Guarantee would put it beyond doubt that we all have a right to equality before the law and equality in our lives and protection from discrimination. However, the Solicitor General was absolutely confident that we needn’t worry and that such a thing was so unlikely to happen that it would be ridiculous to put such a Guarantee into this Bill. And so on. And so on……………………….

Tim Boswell (Tory) tabled a similar thing – although not so broad and over-arching – but something called a ‘purpose clause’ which basically is a statement of the intention behind the Bill so that a judge, if something one day was unclear, could look at this ‘purpose clause’ and understand the intention of the Bill. Vera Baird was more polite to Tim than myself – but equally dismissed it.

In the afternoon and very last session of the Committee there was an amendment about not inquiring of applicants for jobs as to whether they had a disability. Not unlike my anonymous job applications in theory. Disability organisations have lobbied members of the committee because their experience is that employers do discriminate against applicants with a disability – whether or not that disability would detract from their ability to do the job.

Anyway – that was it. The tradition then is that all the leads of the parties thank everyone, clerks, officials, the committee, the other leads etc etc for a wonderful debate and so on. Vera Baird summed up on the key issues that the Government has promised to consider (change) and come back with hopefully their own amendments at Report Stage which will be in the autumn session.

I quote:

Solicitor-General: However, I have agreed to consider five matters: whether to include various fire and rescue bodies in the socio-economic duty, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green; the clarification, if necessary, of the asymmetric nature of disability protection in clause 13(3); the issue around the case of Malcolm and whether we need to make the protection in clause 14 clearer; the case for representative actions; and, very recently, whether to limit the use of pre-employment disability questionnaires. That is a little survey of the work that I still have to do before we gather again on Report. I will seriously consider all those proposals.

I reminded the Minster of the DWP work on anonymous job applications too! So – quite a lot of the arguments we have had in Committee have born fruit – but not nearly enough. So there will be lots to bring back at Report Stage. The issues that the Government needs to change their mind on are things like: the gender pay gap; the issue of discrimination in the caste system; harassment in terms of homophobic bullying not being protected in the clashes with religious freedoms; gender reassignment needing to become gender identity as reassignment has been used in previous terms to indicate sex change – and this needs to be much broader; anonymous job applications and lots lots more. Some exciting new issues to come in the autumn too – as Evan and I are bringing forward the issue of Royal Accession to the Throne – where we feel and have both campaigned on – the discrimination both in the bar against Catholic accession and the tradition of females dropping back in succession in favour of younger born males.
Way to go……………………

Question Nick Clegg on Monday

Posted on by

On Monday Nick Clegg is going to take part in a live, never been done before, online equivalent to his Town Hall meetings around the country:

On Monday we can change the way we do politics. Every week I travel around the country to meet people in their local town halls and listen to their views. Anyone can come along and ask me (just about) anything and in return I get a pretty good picture of how people across the UK feel about politics and how they are being affected by the recession.

Next week I am going to do another of my public Q&A meetings, but this time it is going to be live and online so that you can ask me your questions from home, your work or wherever you happen to be online. There will be no script and no special invitations – just get in touch and ask a question on subjects that concern you.

The one thing that keeps coming up again and again is the state of our politics and how we can clean it up. Many people say they would like to see action taken against MPs who seriously abuse the system. But currently voters have no power to sack those MPs who have been found guilty of serious wrong-doing. I want to change this and make politicians more accountable and politics more transparent. I am keen to hear your ideas.

This has never been done before so, on Monday 13th July post your questions and let’s discuss how we can clean up politics and fix the British economy.

For full details, see the Reuters website.

At the same time, I (chair of the Lib Dem Technology Advisory Board) will be holding a discussion with grassroots activists at Lib Dem HQ, and feeding their questions back to Nick.

Jo Swinson MP (who regularly offers the finest twitter coverage of Prime Minister’s Questions, and has campaigned for coverage of Parliament to be available on YouTube) will be taking part over at Reuters, discussing her use of social media in her work.

Join us online on Monday 13 July at 1pm!

What’s in a name?

Posted on by

Here’s my latest column from the Ham & High:

I had two interns a while back whose surnames were Hussein and Patel. They were bright as buttons and went on to get very good jobs – one at the Ministry of Defence and the other in public relations.

Prior to coming to my office they told me that they had applied for hundreds of jobs but not even got through to the interview stage. Now much as I’d like to hope that my interns get valuable experience – after all, that is the point – it was a striking change that once they’d got “worked for an MP” to put on their CV they suddenly got much more interest from would-be employers.

So that got met thinking that there might be a discard of applications because of an unconscious bias – a bias that is only beaten back when there’s a strong contrary hook in the CV for people to latch on to. If that’s the case, then the answer is simply – move to anonymous job applications where the application is processed, at least until interview stage, using a reference number with the name withheld.

Without a name the ethnicity, gender and age of the applicant would be hidden – and the application would be judged on its merit in terms of qualifications and experience. Of course, when it comes to interview, all would be revealed. But once an applicant is in the room – they’ve got a chance to show what they’re made of.

We give children numbers to write on their exam papers to ensure that there is absolutely no bias in marking. This is really the same kind of thing. And it’s also what some employers do at the moment.

I floated my thesis in the second reading of the Equality Bill and it caused quite a hoo ha in the employment world. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development supported the idea – although did not believe it should be mandatory. Some in the human resource industry thought it was a stupid idea – though I was a bit surprised that some said it couldn’t be done, given some firms are doing this already!

Undeterred, at the Committee stage of the Bill I tabled an amendment that would see this brought into law. The Solicitor General, Vera Baird (Labour Minister) – after sneering for a bit as is apparently mandatory when a good idea comes from an opposition MP – admitted that the Department of Work and Pensions was doing some survey work to find out if my theory was correct. She said she was sorry to tantalise the committee as the work would not be finished until the summer – but initial findings showed ‘significant discrimination’.

I was really excited – because if there is a big problem here – then the use of anonymous CVs is a really simple, effective (and low cost!) way of fixing it. And so many benefits flow from removing discrimination in the job market in terms of opening up opportunities and spreading wealth – brining pluses such as greater social cohesion and economic efficiency which we all benefit from.

Then the Mail on Sunday gets the wrong end of the stick and blasts the Government for carrying out this research. Well excuse me – but research to see if a change in the law is required sounds pretty sensible to me – especially on an issue as important as discrimination in employment practices. The Mail quoted various grumpy employers not liking the idea that research is being done to check whether discrimination is taking place – but if that’s the case they shouldn’t have anything to fear from the research. And a smart employer would also know the depth of scientific research that already exists into the myriad of subtle ways that biases and discrimination can creep into human decision-making processes – as seen in bestselling books such as Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.

Blimey – this is a proposal that actually won’t cost business any money and might drastically improve the situation for applicants for jobs – bringing fairness and equality – and still they moan.

So what’s in a name? Quite a lot!

Life outside the Equality Bill

Posted on by

Just to catch up on life outside the Equality Bill Committee – I thought I would just run through a few of my activities this week so far.

I had a long conversation (in lieu of a meeting) with Treehouse – our autistic school in Muswell Hill. They have withdrawn an application for an all-weather sports pitch because they need to work with concerned local residents to make sure that everyone is happy with any proposals.

I did the World at One (radio) after Prime Minister’s Questions. I was in the studio with the panel who were Lord Myners, Lord Adonis, Andrew Mitchell and me! Spot the difference! Andrew Mitchell and I are elected! The other two are Ministers in the Labour Government! We were discussing the new White Paper proposals from Alistair Darling on the banking system and cuts! On banking – to me Labour are hoping that if they use high fallutin titles for new structures like – Council for Financial Stability – which just means the same people all meeting each other but with a different label – that we will all believe they are doing something rather than moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic. I just think when we are presented with re-structuring as a solution – it means that they just don’t know what to do! It’s not rocket science. They need to stop paying themselves massive bonuses and get the banks to lend money to solvent businesses!

Spurs laid on a dinner for about 20 people in a very nice restaurant as they want to get to know a supportive group of MPs and Lords. Obviously David Lammy MP (Tottenham) and I were there as the local MPs – but it was interesting to find other MPs including Hilary Benn and Iain Duncan Smith were also Spurs mad! Behind the dinner is really the journey they are now on to make the new stadium a reality. I think the plans are fantastic and am more than happy to help them in any way I can – as were all the politicians.

Lastly – I did an interview for BBC Parliament / BBC News Chanel on Speaker Bercow’s proposal that we scrap the very quaint but in my view ridiculous language we use in the chamber like ‘Honourable, learned and brave Member’ etc. I was set against Sir Nicholas Winterton – so no marks for guessing who was the traditionalist and who was the moderniser!

UPDATE: You can watch an extract from the BBC here.

The 17th and 18th sitting of the Equality Bill Committee

Posted on by

Coming towards the end of the line by line scrutiny of the Bill. Blogging the little bit of it that I have has been quite a struggle as there is so much to cover – and I simply can’t cover all of it. For those who are interested – the entire transcript of all the evidence sessions and committee sessions is on Hansard – so for those who want word by word of each moment – that’s the place for you.

The key issues in the 17th and 18th sessions were as follows.

There was an extraordinary response from Vera Baird, Solicitor General, to my Lib Dem colleague, Evan Harris’ amendment. This was all to do with the schools being exempted from protection afforded by this Bill. The problem is that this leaves in place, without change, the old laws that are in the School Standards and Framework Act. Here is a little bit of the discussion just at the beginning of this particular argument – to set the scene.

Dr. Harris: In the Bill we are dealing with the rights of people to not be discriminated against on one of the protected grounds. Section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act arguably gives state schools the right to dismiss someone on the basis of their belief, their attendance at worship or their conduct. It is alleged by faith schools that conduct that is not consistent with those tenets, including private conduct related to sexual orientation, comes within sections 58 to 60. The Solicitor-General will know that when hon. Members debated the 2003 employment regulations, which are reproduced in the Bill, there was a long debate about the paragraph in those regulations that said that, notwithstanding the regulations, sections 58 to 60 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 will apply. Therefore, this is very much a live issue; that is what the provisions say.

So you can see – hopefully – where the argument lies. We Lib Dems think that this exemption should be got rid of as it allows discrimination to continue under that older Act. And there is an ongoing argument through many of the discussions about the protection for ‘religion and belief’ where there is a fundamental disagreement as ‘the tenets and beliefs’ of some religions are discriminatory – specifically that homosexuality is wrong. Blimey – we’ve just had a religious Christian leader saying that homosexuals need to repent and change on the news – which I think illustrates the point.

The Solicitor General’s response was thus:

The Solicitor-General: The UK negotiated the inclusion of article 4(2) of the framework directive with the intention of preserving the provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act, and we are satisfied that they are compliant. That provides for future legislation to allow differential treatment on religious grounds, where that reflects national practices and where there is a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement. Nothing in the Act can be used to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, which would be unlawful in employment law.

Let me add — this is all that I intend to add — that we do not intend to override substantive education legislation in the Bill. There is no problem whatever, and we will not mend something that is not broken.

This was all she would say in response to eight key questions that exposed the very real harm that could prevail in schools if the Government’s exemption went ahead.

It is fine to disagree – the Government almost always does – but to be so contemptuous and not give a proper response I think is disgraceful and a good example of how the Government disdains real argument. When it can’t answer – it falls back on simply being rude!

Then there was then a bit of a row about scouts. The proposition was that you shouldn’t have to swear a religious oath to join – and examples are to be forthcoming from Evan Harris (which he will send to the committee) of volunteers (adult) who have been told just to take the oath but cross their fingers – as they are desperate for volunteers to run the scouts but many who would wish to are not of the right religion or are not religious. Government awaits the evidence!

An interesting discussion then ensued, based on two of Evan’s amendments. These were about discrimination in sport – most noticeably between men and women. It happens in a number of ways. For example – our women’s cricket team won the world cup – and got barely any coverage compared to what would have happened had it been the men’s team. So – it’s about the different attitude of the broadcasters. And to those who say that the broadcasters broadcast what people want to watch – the discrimination starts in the amount of women’s events compared to men’s. If you take one sport (like Olympic cycling) there are more men’s races than women’s. There is no reason for this and the consequence is that women’s cycling is secondary or perceived to be secondary to men’s cycling. There is no reason – physical or otherwise – for this discrepancy and the media broadcast what is there – so if there are less women’s events there will be less coverage.