Category Archives: Blog

The Equality Bill

Posted on by

My latest local newspaper column was about the Equality Bill:

Fanfare please! At last – the much trailed, much vaunted, long-time in gestation Equality Bill is here and going through Parliament.

So what’s in it? Well – there’s not space to cover the great tome in just one column – but here’s a taster.

Much of the Bill is a bringing together of all the bits and pieces of equality legislation over recent decades – and that’s one of those small sounding administrative changes (putting all the rules together in one place) that will actually have a big impact (clearer legislation means easier to understand, fewer mistakes and – sorry lawyers! – even a bit less legal work in future). That’s one of the reasons why broadly speaking the Liberal Democrats are backing this Bill, although as it goes through Parliament we (in particular – myself, leading on the Bill in the Commons – and Lord Lester, who basically wrote the book on equalities, leading on the Bill in the Lords) will be working to improve it.

Now getting to the contentious stuff – and making sure than men and women are paid equally for equivalent jobs. I’m a great fan of pay audits – making companies and the public sector check their pay to ensure that they aren’t discriminating in what they pay men and women. Of course, when this issue comes up, there’s always a chorus of voices saying, “Oh, we’re fine in our firm/industry/sector”. Well, if that’s the case – a clean bill of health will be a good mark in favour of a firm that will make it easier to attract good quality staff. And if it isn’t the case – well, that’s the whole point – to bring that to light.

But the Government has wimped out of requiring firms to carry out pay audits. It says something about the struggle there is still to be had for men and women to be treated equally that there are 1,001 things the Government is happy to order firms to do – but at the basic level of not discriminating in pay, it has blinked. Instead, the Bill proposals a weak voluntary scheme for several years, with maybe, perhaps, possibly further action after that.

Better news though – one way firms get away with unfair or unequal pay practices is by banning staff from telling anyone else how much they are paid. Rather a restriction on freedom of speech – and the Bill will ban this sort of censorship.

Next, religion – or more accurately, the Government’s intention to extend the current existing public duties to race, gender, disability and sexual orientation to religion and belief. This would mean that public authorities would be obliged in carrying out their functions to advance equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups. Obviously we all would subscribe to promoting good relations etc – but a public duty? Religious views on things like abortion, alcohol, homosexuality and sex education in schools are varied – to put it mildly. It would be absurd to require public authorities to accommodate all the different religious views in these policies which affect us all. This is a road to hell (if you will excuse the religious connotations) paved with good – but ludicrous – intentions.

And one more major issue to pick out – the proposed new duty for bodies receiving public funding, requiring them to consider the equality gap between rich and poor. In some ways this is no different from saying that when our taxes are spent by public bodies they should bear in mind whether or not they are damaging our environment in how they go about spending them. Thinking of the wider implications of spending makes sense and if you can use the spending to help achieve more than one goal – then that’s even better news as it’s more value for money in the cash-strapped times. But the way this duty is laid out in the Bill is, I fear, simplistic and unfair, it’s wording is broad enough to attract controversy, worry and legal arguments, but too weak to have much of an impact. The worst of all worlds. This is a case where the role of Parliament in amending Bills can be crucial.

That’s only a brief sample of the points covered by the Bill – and even for those, it’s a pretty brief summary of what the Bill does and my views on it. You can keep up with them in more detail as the Bill goes through Parliament via my list of blog postings on the topic.

Reaction on the doorsteps to the expenses scandals

Posted on by

Knocking on doors in Crouch End yesterday was generally friendly – but it is quite clear that people are upset and angry with politicians who cheat and/or milk the system. There is also deep concern about the future of our democracy as people feel that they have been betrayed and don’t know where to turn and who to trust. And quite frankly – I feel the same – and don’t even know how to reassure them.

Only using this ‘opportunity’ for radical change and reform stands even a chance of restoring any trust or respect – in a decade’s time if we are lucky.

That is why it is crucial that the Speaker goes. It is crucial that those MPs who have evaded tax or committed fraud should face the consequences of their actions – and for any other MPs if the Standards Committee finds them at fault – then deselection. The rest who have transgressed should face their electorate.

And the sooner we have an election the better!

Playing tennis with Greg Rusedski

Posted on by

So Penny Chalmers, she who must be obeyed, of Coolhurst Tennis Club said I had to wear shorts to play tennis with Greg Rusedski when we ‘opened’ the new tennis courts. My office said yes – no problem. I said – cellulite! However – not having a track suit – I bowed to the inevitable.

It was very heartwarming in a way – as the local crowd there were very kind (considering I am an MP and we are scum currently) but as a good guy – they seemed relieved and wanted to reassure me that they didn’t see me like the others. But I have to say – I feel contaminated by what has been going on.

Back to tennis. Penny gave her speech thanking all those who have worked tirelessly to get to the point of today – three new tennis courts to which the local children from schools around will have access. Fantastic – and a host of people have driven this through the many obstacles. Islington Council (Lib Dem) gave some funding towards it as dear old Labour Haringey refused.

It is hard to believe it’s only three and a half months since we did sodding ceremony (where I had to dig up the first sod with a shovel). And equally hard to believe that it is only nine months since Penny first contacted me about planning challenges – which is when I dived in to support their cause.

I want to applaud the scheme – Congratulate Coolhurst and The Trustees of Aloysius Playing Fields – for making this scheme a reality. The concept of partnership between private members clubs and schools for shared use facilities offers tremendous community benefits.

As for today – I managed to get a couple of balls back across the net to Greg – so that was a major achievement. And – of course – by tennis past as ball boy at Queen’s was revealed. Sadly – as I ball boyed for stars such as John Newcombe and Rod Laver – it was a bit of an age give away!

The Speaker should go

Posted on by

The Speaker should go. This is the man who moved to block freedom of information on MPs expenses. This is the man who is meant to hold the respect of Parliament and parliamentarians. This is the man whose first instinct last week was to shoot the messengers rather than address the crisis breaking all around us.

There is to be a vote of confidence next week – but I hope for his as well as our sake – that he goes of his own volition before then.

That doesn’t deal with the MPs who have defrauded the system or evaded tax – who must face investigation under the law. They should be sacked. Those who have had to ‘pay back’ depending on the scale of the offence either should be deselected/resign or face their electorate in due course and give them the ultimate say on their future. And those MPs who haven’t done anything wrong should have equal space in the Telegraph saying so.

I texted Nick Clegg a few days ago to suggest he call for the dissolution of Parliament as I cannot see how we can continue given that we, the members of the House of Commons, have collectively no credibility or respect or trust. Listening to a pundit on the news just now, though, he said we need three months to do this in orderly fashion – to deselect those MPs who have abused the system and to not go to the polls at a moment when in anger – the baby would be thrown out with the bathwater. I assume he meant that the anger and the fury of the people voting at this moment would turn it into an election exclusively about an expression of that anger – and that elections should be about the economy etc. I am not sure I agree – as everything feels contaminated at the moment.

Scrapping SATs

Posted on by

A few weeks ago I arranged for Evelyn Davies (Head of Coldfall School) and two of her associates to meet with Jim Knight (schools minister) to make their case that SATs should be scrapped. And Evenly made a superb case. Coldfall had done a survey showing the level of concern from parents about sATs.

So the news now that year 6 Science SATs will be scrapped is excellent – except the Government needs to go further. So far it is only science SATs that are to go – and they need to include English and Maths in the plans.

Expenses

Posted on by

There seems to be a line being drawn in the expenses disgrace between those MPs who may have committed fraud or who have manipulated the ‘rules’ to maximise personal gain – and those who have claimed for things that never should have even been thought of as a claim. In the case of the former it is in my view a matter for the law and resignation, and for the latter a matter of paying back, public humiliation and the electorate’s verdict in due course.

And then there’s the rest – who claim only for normal office expenses and proper receipts for renting or staying!

I can’t see this ever ending at the moment. And the awful disrepute into which we all collectively as MPs have fallen and the terrible blow to to parliamentary process and democracy altogether is horrific.

Also, this is the only story in town. And as someone who over the last week has been involved in two really desperately important issues both covered in the press: Will Pike’s right to compensation as a British citizen hideously injured in the terrorist attack in Mumbai and secondly the revelation that Great Ormond Street Hospital has been as bad as Haringey Council with regard to Baby P – I am worried that those who need to be pressured will not be getting the attention that the seriousness of those issues deserves.

Meanwhile this week, Parliament debated the Equality Bill

Posted on by

On Monday I led for the Liberal Democrats in the Second Reading of the Equality Bill. The key issues are: the gender pay gap, the duty on bodies to reduce socio-economic inequality; the ending of discrimination on age in goods and services; procurement and much much more – as you can see in my speech here.

But one idea I floated in the speech was how to stop being disbarred from getting a job – before you even get an interview. Lots of people get thrown on the scrapheap because their name is a give away as to their ethnicity, sex or age. This is not (just) about discrimination that is overt – but in a pile of applications it’s about also subliminal and unconscious discrimination – and I have come up with a proposal to eliminate it. It’s in my speech in full – but Personnel Today also picked up on it.

Great Ormond Street failed Baby P too!

Posted on by

When I found out that the last doctor to see Baby Peter failed to recognise a broken back and ribs – like the rest of the nation I thought she must be a terrible doctor. And she clearly was. However, I also read that she was a locum – and ever since then I have been digging and digging to find out why there was a locum and what lay beneath.

I found out. And whilst I have no doubt that Haringey Labour Council and Sharon Shoesmith were first in line for retribution being the lead agency and lead individual – I have also had no doubt that there were other agencies who were just as bad.

There was a locum because the consultant pediatricians, four of them, in the children’s health department in Haringey (commissioned by Haringey PCT and run by Great Ormond Street – GOSH) had either left, been off permanently sick or on special leave! On digging I found that these doctors had raised their concerns with GOSH and been ignored. Yet again – management taking no notice of dangers being flagged up by professionals – just as the police and a senior social worker at Haringey raised concerns that Baby P should be taken away from the family.

I raised it on my blog. I got Norman Lamb (Lib Dem Health Spokesperson) to raise it in a health debate. I raised it myself in a speech in the chamber. But it is only now that investigative journalist for the Evening Standard, Andrew Gilligan, has found out the real detail of the story and broken it in the paper that the part that GOSH and Haringey PCT played in Baby P’s death is coming to light. He actually has a copy of the letter to the management at GOSH saying that they don’t believe the management has taken their concerns seriously and listing the reasons that children’s lives were at risk.

And yesterday – the Health Care Commission report into Baby P’s death also came out with findings that make it clear that there were systemic and individual failings in GOSH and the Health Trusts – all scandalous stuff.

What has been going on in children’s health in Haringey is practically a mirror image of what was going on in Haringey Council, Children’s Services and the Safeguarding Board.

I hope that this now all comes to light and that equally drastic and appropriate action is taken.

Needless to say – I will be writing to Ed Balls in this regard.

YouTube – what's your verdict?

Posted on by

Over the last few weeks I’ve been experimenting with doing YouTube films – partly driven by necessity (broken hand makes talking to camera much easier than typing!).

If you’ve not seen the films previously, you can see them on YouTube here. So the question now is – should I carry on with them?

I’ve been surprised at the viewership patterns. With blog posts, most of the traffic usually comes shortly after the post has gone up. With the films, the traffic is more slow and steady. There hasn’t been that much of an initial burst, perhaps because people see a blog post or tweet about them whilst at work and don’t have speakers – or have speakers but don’t want the office to hear and don’t have headphones with them. However, the views carry on steadily moving up.

Given how very local the content of some of them has been (e.g. about the service at Muswell Hill Post Office), I wouldn’t expect that large an audience in the end anyway. So – viewership figures promising, particularly if they continue to grow and an audience gets established.

Anecdotal feedback from people has been positive too, though comments and ratings on YouTube itself though have been very thin on the ground.

If you are interested in the technical details, it’s all been filmed on a Canon Ixus 70, using the inbuilt microphone and with minimal editing via Windows Movie Maker. In other words – pretty basic equipment but it seems to do the job with only one or two technical hitches. The built-in mike isn’t great in noisy locations, but the traffic noise in my Westbury Avenue film actually probably added to the point about the dangers from speeding traffic.

Anyway, those are my views on the films so far. What are yours?