Commenting on Saturday’s Hornsey Carnival, Lynne Featherstone MP says:
“Another fantastic Hornsey Carnival on a fabulous summer’s day. It was great to see so many local residents out to enjoy the parade and the other fun activities around Hornsey.
“Well done to everyone who works tirelessly year after year to make the carnival a success and to bring the local community together in such a wonderful way.”
Clear goals need to be set to get the best deal for local residents out of the Tottenham Hotspur regeneration project Liberal Democrats have said. At a meeting of Haringey Council’s watchdog committee last week Cllr David Winskill, Liberal Democrat lead on the committee, said that Haringey Council’s response to what outcomes local people would receive failed to include targets for crucial factors such as housing, jobs and training.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the redevelopment of the Tottenham football ground should be one of the key economic drivers for the regeneration of one of the poorest areas in South-East England.
Cllr David Winskill (Crouch End), Liberal Democrat lead on the Overview and Scrutiny committee, comments:
“At this stage Haringey Council should be working much more closely with Tottenham Hotspur to maximise the benefits for locals from this development – all we have are a few vague details.
“If Labour were committed to delivering for Tottenham they would ensure that local residents would get the best possible deal. As soon as Haringey Labour wake up to this, the better.
“Local residents need to see clear targets for affordable housing, new infrastructure, training opportunities for young people and employment opportunities.”
Cllr Rachel Allison, Liberal Democrat regeneration spokesperson, adds:
“Haringey Council under Labour has a long history of unsuccessful regeneration projects that have failed to deliver real and lasting benefits for local people.
“Tottenham Hotspur should be a major kick-start to the local Tottenham economy yet we see no evidence that Haringey Council has the vision to take full advantage of this golden opportunity.”
Lynne Featherstone MP adds:
“This project has huge potential for the whole of Haringey.We cannot let this great opportunity pass us by.”
Local Liberal Democrats have responded to the Government’s consultation on the future of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) by saying that the power given to authorities, like Haringey Council, to snoop on local residents should be reduced.
The RIPA legislation gives many public bodies the authority to investigate local residents using surveillance, undercover officers and the interception of electronic data.
Liberal Democrats believe that the use of the legislation, aimed to stop terrorism and high-level crime, has been abused by local authorities and, in Haringey, has been used to snoop on fly-tippers and other less serious offenders.
Furthermore, they believe that crimes such as drug dealing, gang related violence and serious anti social behaviour which Haringey Council has also justified the use of RIPA powers should be matters for experienced police officers rather than council workers.
Cllr Jonathan Bloch, Liberal Democrat in Muswell Hill and author of books on intelligence and spying, comments:
“Local residents’ civil liberties are seriously threatened by the continued use of RIPA. Councils should not have special surveillance powers to snoop in bins or spy on residents.
“Haringey Council have justified their use of RIPA by saying that they are investigating serious crimes. Whilst perpetrators of these crimes need to be pursued, local councils should leave it to professional police officers who are trained for years to catch criminals.”
Cllr Ron Aitken, Liberal Democrat Crime Spokesperson, adds:
“As Liberal Democrats we believe that our surveillance society should be not allowed to grow further and should be reduced wherever possible.
“Crime fighting should be left to the professionals and even when a council can lend a hand in helping to catch criminals the powers that local authorities have should be subject to checks and balances and used sparingly.”
A public debate on tougher enforcement of local by-laws which can take action against residents for spitting in public in conjunction with a programme of education to persuade people not to spit in the street should take place say local Liberal Democrats.
At a meeting of Haringey Council’s watchdog committee last week a Haringey NHS official agreed that further investigation was needed into whether spitting constitutes a risk to public health, especially considering the recent outbreak of swine flu.
Haringey Council’s Street Enforcement Teams and the local Safer Neighbourhood officers currently have the power to fine offenders with a fixed penalty but this is often not used.
Cllr Ron Aitken, Liberal Democrat Crime and Enforcement spokesperson, comments:
“By-laws against spitting were passed by local authorities in the last century as a public health and anti-TB measure.
“With a predicted serious outbreak of swine flu we need to debate whether we need to start to take tougher action on people who spit in public places. Hopefully persuasion and education will succeed without the need for fines.
“Why fine for litter or dog mess when spitting shows a lack of respect for other citizens? I would like to hear what residents, Haringey Council and the police think.”
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.
I am remiss in blogging the things I am doing outside of the Equality Bill – but I am still doing the usual level of meetings, events and so on. I met with the Gurkhas at Parliament to support the campaign for equal pension rights. I met with a local woman who is starting a campaign to get a counsellor (talking therapy kind – not Haringey Council) into every primary school. I think this is a very good idea – and in principle am supporting her campaign. I met with a Japanese reporter who wanted my assessment of the key issues around the Baby Peter case as they have a similar case in Japan – where they don’t have children’s social services. I did a lecture on ‘ A Different Future’ to a progressive group – expounding my theories that we mustn’t return to the same old same old greed and avarice – both in banking and in politics. I did an interview with the programme ‘How to Look Good Naked’ and no – it didn’t involve me in taking my clothes off – and no I am not going to reveal here what it was about! All will be revealed in the autumn when the program goes out! I did an interview with the Westminster Hour (pre-recorded) on the Parliamentary procedures around Bill Committee – don’t get me started – just so wrong.
I visited a local hostel run by St Mungo’s – famous for its work with rough sleepers and the homeless. This hostel works with those coming out of prison – and is doing really great work with some of the most difficult and challenging persistent offenders. They are having quite a lot of success in reducing re-offending – which in my view is the way to go. Currently re-offending rates are astronomical – but often because those in prison have mental health or substance issues and come out with no skills, sometimes illiterate and no home or job. The work that St Mungo’s do is to give people the ability to take their place back in society by helping them with all those things.
I went to Abyssinia Court – a local sheltered housing scheme – where a local volunteer had organised a fantastic afternoon. Yolanthe had persuaded local therapists and nutritionists to come into the home to talk about important, really important things for the not so young – like nutrition, exercise, yoga, homeopathy and many other alternative therapies. There were talks explaining the different things in the main room – and then you could go to any of the advisers or therapists for a taster. What a fabulous thing to do for our older citizens. And then there’s been the the Hornsey Carnival and Bazm-e-shero adab at Wood Green library!
On we went to the 15th and 16th sitting of the Equality Bill Committee during the week. The first part of the day was spent on the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Tim Boswell (Tory) had tabled an amendment that sought to add protection of an individual’s human rights to the public sector equality duty. The argument he made (rightly in my view – and I have a new clause along the same lines next Tuesday) was that the Bill should not only be about stopping discrimination on specific grounds – the ‘protected characteristics’ such as race, sex, disability, religions, sexual orientation and so on. It should also be about more general promotion of human rights – which, apart from the practical implications would also be an important message of principle about human rights being for everyone and not simply a collection of specific niches. In response, the Solicitor General did not really address the point, just saying that she did not think this amendment would add anything to the protection already in the Bill.
The debate moved onto the frontbench Tories arguing (or probing) the Government as to how they wanted the public sector equality duty to apply to private companies who are contracted to deliver public services. The duty certainly extends to their delivery of the public service for which they are contracted – but not it would seem to their own organisation.
The Minister argued against this, saying it would put companies in an uncompetitive position. If Group 4, for example, in its public function of running prisons was also thereby required to follow the public sector equality duty in its other commercial ventures – say delivering cash to banks – then other companies that did not have this duty could have a competitive advantage.
There was also a very long section around religious organisations who also operate commercial functions. An example would be Catholic adoption agencies – which under the duty would be bound to facilitate adoption to a gay couple. Given that they feel this transgresses their ethos, the argument was that they should not have to do it.
The Solicitor General answered that in the provision of adoption services such an agency should be able to offer every option for a child – including gay adoption if necessary. I don’t think this is something that there will ever be agreement on – but the law moves to make a public function non-discriminatory.
In the afternoon, I had two amendments which questions why the Government exempted schools and children’s homes from the protection from age discrimination. My arguments were around the inequity of children in children’s homes being arbitrarily moved because that children’s home was registered for, say, 10 – 14 year olds – which can be bad enough in itself, but even worse if it means they are separated from siblings with whom they are meant to be kept. Under 18s have, in my view, the same need for protection from discrimination as adults – if not more. How young people and children are treated shapes them for the rest of their lives. If treated with respect – they will grow up respectful. It was a very long argument – but once again – the Government maintained it was just fine if children had to put up with being shunted around to suit the system rather than their needs.
The BBC then came into the debate in the form of a probing amendment that sought to find out whether they would be subject to the public sector equality duty in their programming. The Minister assured the Committee that the duty applied only to that which was outside of the content of their programming. Phew!
The Ofsted Report on Haringey Council’s progress on child protection since the fall out after Baby P and since the installation of a new Director of Children’s Services was published this morning.
It makes miserable reading as the key findings are that the situation in Haringey Child Protection was even worse than we thought with a 400 case backlog. Either Haringey didn’t know how bad they were or they were hiding how bad they were – either way a terrifying prospect.
The report states: ‘Significant shortcomings remain which means that children and young people in Haringey are not yet consistently safeguarded.’
And goes onto say: ‘The Council has made limited progress overall in addressing the areas of weakness identified in the November 2008 joint area review … Capacity to improve within the Council and across the partnership is limited overall.’
Whilst the report rightly recognises the efforts that have been made by staff to improve the service and safeguard the borough’s children, the main message is that children and young people are still not safe and that progress is limited and the capacity to improve that situation is also rubbish.
Peter Lewis (new Director on very high salary) said it would take him three years to really turn Haringey around. However, this report would seem to indicate that he is not track – or at least a fast enough track – to do so.
I will be seeking a meeting with him – to find out why there has been such slow progress and what the issues are. Certainly there is a shortage of social workers – and they are not rushing to Haringey to help.
But I have to say if things don’t speed up in the next six months maximum – then Ed Balls is going to have to put Haringey into special measures. We cannot continue with our children not being safeguarded properly.
Commenting on the Ofsted inspection of progress made in the provision of safeguarding services in the London Borough of Haringey, Cllr Robert Gorrie, Opposition Liberal Democrat Leader on Haringey Council, says:
“Children and young people in Haringey are not yet consistently safeguarded and are still at risk due to shortcomings in the performance of Haringey Council and its partners.
“Haringey Council has made only limited progress in addressing the areas of weakness and worryingly the capacity to improve is reported as limited. This is an unacceptable situation.
“The inspection shows Haringey’s Children’s Services was in a significantly worse state at the beginning of this year than Haringey Council leaders previously understood or admitted.
“The most urgent question is when the public will have the confidence that children in Haringey are being safeguarded properly.
“Whilst the Ofsted report rightly recognises the efforts by staff to improve the safeguarding of children in Haringey, the central message of the report is much less reassuring.”
Lynne Featherstone MP adds:
“What is clear is that problems in child protection and safeguarding were much deeper than anyone thought – instead of being up to its waist, Haringey Council is clearly still struggling to keep its head above water.
“There are still serious concerns which cannot be starker than in the report’s statement that Haringey’s children are not yet consistently safeguarded.
“The report shows that Haringey Council is still failing to safeguard children and young people in Haringey.
“I want to know when children in Haringey are going to be safe.”
Concern is growing for the future of allotments near to a local covered reservoir after a water company this week announced that is considering selling off part of the site. The Fortis Green reservoir, which is situated between Lauradale Road and Woodside Avenue, is popular with local residents walking through to Highgate Woods and is home to many allotments. Thames Water has said in a letter to residents and allotment holders that it is now “surplus to requirements”.
Liberal Democrats have written to Thames Water to voice their concerns and to ask when Thames Water is proposing to sell it off.
Cllr Martin Newton (Fortis Green), who has also contacted Haringey Council to ask how it can protect the site, comments:
“The Fortis Green reservoir is a wonderful open space, much loved by local residents and home to many residents’ allotments.
“We want Thames Water to come clean on when they want to get rid of this land and we want Haringey Council to ensure that it will be protected from developers.
“With allotment space already at a premium in Haringey, with residents having to wait years for a plot, the allotments need to be saved.”
Lynne Featherstone MP adds:
“Developers must be licking their lips at the prospect of prime development land coming up for grabs. What Haringey Council must do is protect this valuable open space. Discussion with Thames Water must happen immediately to make sure that Haringey does not lose further precious green space.”
Lynne Featherstone 