I’m on The Westminster Hour tonight (Sunday): Radio 4, 10pm. Don’t yet know what will be up for discussion – but if you’ve got any views on the political events of the moment, let me know.
If you miss the show you’ll be able to listen again on their website.
OK – so am going to try and blog the process of legislation through the Equality Bill. To date – we have had the First Reading of the Bill (a formality) and then the Second Reading , which happens in the chamber of the House of Commons and where the Bill overall is debated. We have had ‘evidence’ sessions where witnesses (groups with particular interest in the Bill) give their views on parts of the Bill and we get to questions them. And now we have entered the Committee Stage where we (a smaller group of MPs) scrutinise the legislation line by line.
If this gets too long-winded or onerous I will cease – but as I write so often about local issues – thought it might interest some to see the Parliamentary process at work.
The Bill is gone through in order and we, the Tories and the Government, table amendments to the Bill and some are selected each session of the Committee for.
The key issues that came up in the first sessions were:
– the “socio-economic duty”: this would be a new duty on, for example, local councils to consider the impact of their decisions and spending on the gap between rich and poor, and to try to reduce these socio-economic divides where possible.
– which bodies should be covered by this new duty: it would apply to parts of ‘the state’ but how narrowly or broadly should the net be cast?
– the “protected characteristics” – that is, those categories which would be protected by this Bill from discrimination, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
The socio-economic duty is something that the Government bunged in at the last minute. All parties believe narrowing the socio-economic gap is important – but the Tories feel it shouldn’t be in this particular Bill. We Liberal Democrats think it is one of the greatest and most intractable of inequalities – but that this duty is somewhat tokenistic. We have no objection to the good it might do – but believe it far too weak to really deliver change.
When we got to debating the Government’s list of authorities that would come under this duty, the Government was disposed to accept/look at two of my amendments which question why the Greater London Authority bodies like the Fire Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London were excluded when they are clearly making strategic decisions that can affect the socio-economic status. Ditto for fire authorities across the country.
The ‘form’ for amendments is that even if the Government agrees with them, they don’t support them at the Committee Stage, but instead say they will introduce similar amendments of their own at the subsequent Report Stage. Sometimes this can be for good reasons (they can get their lawyers to pour over the wording to ensure it’s just right) but sometimes also there is a touch of “if it hasn’t got our name on it, we won’t support it” about it all.
Anyway – the Government said they will bring back their own amendments on these issues, so it looks as if the changes I was asking for will end up in the Bill – hurrah!
What would it mean in practice? Well, consider the example of a fire authority making decisions about its fire prevention efforts. The duty would require them to consider the different risks in areas arising from how deprived they are – for example, in poorer areas there may be fewer firm alarms, buildings may be less fireproof, more use of paraffin heaters etc. If it then turns out some areas are therefore at greater risk of fires and death from fires – then they’d have to take this into account when planning their fire prevention work.
Then we debated the list of ‘protected characteristics’ such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc – sometimes called the ‘equality strands’. We (Liberal Democrats) were proposing amendments to stop discrimination on the grounds of someone’s caste, their genetic make-up and family history, disadvantaged socio-economic status, paternity (discrimination on grounds of maternity or pregnancy is already covered, but not paternity) and on grounds of being a carer (people who have caring responsibilities are often discriminated against, for example by an employer who won’t take them on in case their caring responsibilities interfere with their work). And then there was the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ – which turned into a bit of an argy bargy.
All were tossed aside by the Minister (Vera Baird) with varying degrees of sympathy. Socio-economic disadvantage got short shrift as the Government couldn’t see how that could be measured – but I don’t see why given they can quantify poverty in terms of children who get free school dinners or the myriad measures of deprivation through which they give grants. We thought it would anchor the new socio-economic duty – as it is free floating and somewhat illogical without a strand.
They ummed and ahhed a bit about genetics as it clearly will be a problem down the line when the moratorium on insurance companies expires in 2014. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to use genetic information to guide their policies – so they can’t select some people and charge their higher premiums because of their genes for example. The sense of fairness behind the moratorium means it’s been widely supported – but although the Bill is the chance to settle the matter, the Government didn’t seem moved to do anything.
On caste – they were pretty unsympathetic – just saying they had tried to get evidence of discrimination because of caste but the organisations they had gone to (Hindu and Sikh) had said they were very against legal steps to outlaw caste-based discrimination and didn’t have evidence that it was needed. But I can’t help thinking that those who support a caste system might not want to volunteer evidence so that we can outlaw it. On carers – they were more sympathetic but didn’t feel it was necessary ultimately and that they would be covered by ‘association’ to someone who was disabled, old etc.
The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.
The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their ‘characteristic’ is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that ‘reassignment’ wasn’t medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender – and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they ‘change’ gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) – but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don’t present as male or female identifiably.
Anyway – we will return to that issue at Report Stage, I hope, as it is very important and I didn’t feel that the Minister really got it.
Enough for now!
Councillor Ed Butcher, Liberal Democrat Leader on London Fire Brigade and Haringey councillor (Stroud Green), commenting on the conviction of two Haringey landlords for breaching fire regulations says:
“People who rent need to know they are safe. All too often tenants have no choice but to trust their landlords. Prosecution should always be a last resort, but if someone is responsible for protecting other people’s safety, they simply cannot ignore warning after warning from Fire Officers. It is for the courts to decide the sentence on the severity of the breach. In this case they clearly thought that the breach was serious.
“Enforcement action like this is to prevent a tragedy before it happens and I hope it will make others locally and across London think twice about their duty to protect people against fire.”
Extract from press release issued by London Fire Brigade:
Haringey landlords prosecuted for fire safety breaches
Two Haringey landlords have today been sentenced to six months imprisonment and ordered to pay £5000 costs each for breaching fire safety regulations, after a successful prosecution by London Fire Brigade.
The prosecution followed a fire at a house converted into bedsits, on Hampden Road, N8, on 31 March 2007.
Sentencing of the building’s owners Michael de Havilland and Sally Fox, of Muswell Hill, took place at Wood Green Crown Court on Friday 12 June, after de Havilland and Fox pleaded guilty to the breaches.
After the fire, London Fire Brigade Fire safety inspectors found multiple breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
These breaches included inadequate fire detection systems, lack of proper fire doors on bedrooms or the communal kitchen, no emergency lighting in the building’s stairway, lack of firefighting equipment such as a fire extinguisher or fire blankets and no fire risk assessment available for inspection.
As a result of the breaches a further inspection was arranged where it was requested that the owners were present so that these could be highlighted, and an enforcement notice was issued, explaining that the breaches needed to be dealt with.
After further contact with the co-owners and further inspections over a number of months, inspecting officers found that no work to make the premises safe had been completed.
Local Liberal Democrats have this week insisted that residents should be widely consulted after it emerged that the company that sought to start a lap dancing club in Crouch End earlier this year is back with a new planning application.
A previous licensing application, which would have allowed the Music Palace on Tottenham Lane to run a lap dancing club, was withdrawn in the spring after fierce opposition from local residents with the help of local Liberal Democrats and the ‘lapoff’ campaign.
Liberal Democrat councillor Dave Winskill yesterday requested that Haringey Council organise a public planning forum to give local residents a chance to raise their concerns about the application.
Residents will have until the end of June to object, and the final planning decision is likely to be taken by 30th July. The Music Palace will need to get through both planning and licensing to be allowed to run its lap dancing club.
Residents can comment on the application by going to the Haringey website and entering reference: HGY/2009/0953, or by contacting Lynne Featherstone MP on lynne@lynnefeatherstone.org or 020 8340 5459.
Lynne Featherstone MP comments:
“I share local residents’ concern about having a lap dancing club in the heart of Crouch End. Residents need to be given enough time and opportunity to raise their concerns with this application, and I will be with them every step of the way to make sure this happens.”
Crouch End councillor Dave Winskill adds:
“It’s immensely disappointing for residents in the ‘lapoff’ campaign that their summer will be dominated by another fight to stop this application.
“This club is simply not wanted in Crouch End and we’ll make every effort to ensure that it doesn’t get the appropriate permission.”
Non-English speaking residents in Haringey are yet to have adequate information about swine flu after a request for multilingual leaflets was ignored by Haringey Council. In May Liberal Democrat councillor Nigel Scott highlighted the need for Haringey Council to provide information to residents in the main languages spoken in Haringey, warning them of the symptoms and what they should so if they suspect one of their family has the virus.
Haringey Council has ignored Cllr Scott’s request despite an increase in the cases of swine flu in London and Haringey’s first confirmed case.
Cllr Nigel Scott, Liberal Democrat Health Spokesperson, comments:
“Haringey is one of the most diverse communities in London with residents speaking over one hundred different languages. With a swine flu pandemic just announced, Haringey Council has done nothing to ensure that local residents, who may have little understanding of English, would have had the same access to information.
“The fact that many schools in Haringey have up to eighty per cent of pupils speaking English as a second language is a hint that communication also needs to be in languages other than English. With something as important as a threat to public health we cannot afford to get it wrong.”
Lynne Featherstone MP added:
“Just sending such essential information in English is not good enough if it means that many local residents won’t fully understand what steps they need to take to make sure their families are protected.
“Haringey Council, managing one of Britain’s most diverse communities, should make it a priority to ensure residents can access information on such an important issue.”
I’ve often had to put a shifty on when crossing the road at the bottom of Muswell Hill. There hardly seems to be time to make it across. Well – it’s not my imagination – the lights really are not giving enough time to make it safely.
There are 26 major pedestrian crossings in Haringey in breach of national safety guidelines updated in 2005, including the signals at the bottom of Muswell Hill where it meets Priory Road and Park Road, and also the signals where Wightman Road, Hornsey Park Road and Turnpike Lane meet.
I’m lucky – I can still put a shifty on when needed – but older people, people with mobility difficulties and those with babies and young children may not be able to rush across.
It isn’t rocket science and should be easy to fix – so come on Transport for London!
For more on the story, see this week’s Journal coverage.
As I write, Labour’s result in the Euros in Haringey are coming in andit is their worst ever. Their vote has dropped even further than lasttime – and now their vote share across the whole borough (Tottenhamand Hornsey & Wood Green combined) is only 28.5%. I can’t find anyelection of any type since Haringey was created where Labour got sucha low share of the vote – truly an historic low!
The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, have finished only justbehind on 23.5% – up nearly 5% on the last Euros and our best everEuro result in Haringey. All good signs for the big contest next yearfor control of Haringey Council.
The real shock of the night in Haringey, however, was the fall of theConservatives – their vote dipped, taking them to four place in theborough – behind even the Greens! Again, that’s an historic result -the first time the Conservatives have finished fourth across Haringey. Given the stink which Labour is in, the scandals, the amount of columninches that Cameron gets – that’s quite a result!
Of course, I declare a parochial interest in the result in the Hornsey & Wood Green half of the borough – for obvious reasons – and so wasvery pleased with the box count results which put the Lib Dems stillway ahead this side of the borough according to our tally – usuallyextremely accurate.
Watching across the country, however, the sight of Nick Griffinleering at a camera, and stating quite unashamedly that you could tellby looking at people whether they qualified to join this racist,right-wing party, was a sight I hoped we would never see. The hideousbile of the far right taking a place in Europe – the very territorywhere history is scarred by fascist politics – was the nasty lesson ofthe night. We need to look very carefully at how we counter this smallbut insidious inroad into mainstream politics.
The Euros are never easily translatable into General Election results.It is clear that Labour have had one of the most dreadful nights intheir history. It is equally clear that there is no great love for theTories out there either. The beneficiaries have been the smallerparties – in particular UKIP etc – but that these parties do not pickup the vote under the first past the post system of the GeneralElection.
By the time you read this – who knows what will have happened. WillGordon have survived another night of the long knives as the LabourParliamentary Party and the plotters try and find the courage to killhim off? It is only their disarray that failed first time round. Buthe will fight on as long as there is any chance of surviving.
But what about our poor country in the meantime? Whilst politiciansfret and worry about this swing or that seat – peoples’ lives arestill being wrecked as jobs are lost and homes repossessed andbusinesses closed. Let’s hope now that as soon as his humanlypossible, the expenses scandal is cleaned up and a general election iscalled so that the people of this country can have their say.
(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2009
I was listening to LBC on my way in – and my way in took longer than usual because Bob Crow was muscle flexing seemingly just to see if they still worked. Not that well – judging from the reluctance of the very decent staff on the Underground who went to work anyway and did not uniformly abandon Londoners. Three cheers for them!
Anyway – point is – discussion was on the investigation by the man appointed by No 10 to investigate Ministers misdoings etc to look into the case of Shahid Malik, Minster in the Justice Department who had to step down when it was brought into question whether he had paid a market rent on his three bedroom house in Dewsbury. Mr Malik did step down – but always protested his innocence.
Philip Mawer, who investigated the alleged transgressions and breaking of the Minsterial Code, has found Mr Malik did not break the Ministerial Code. Now James O’Brien, presenting said program, made an excellent point. Publish Mr Mawer’s report. If Shahid is innocent – and we must presume he is if the report says so – then let us see the evidence and how the investigation was carried out and what it looked into.
Old Gordon has been blubbing all over the TV that the old order of secrecy and the Gentlemen’s Club is dead. But if they don’t publish – then it’s long live the old order and business as usual.
How could he fail this first test of the new way? James O’Brien is spot on – we need to see for ourselves because we no longer trust. It’s sad – but we must be shown the proof.
It’s not fair on Shahid either – as if they don’t publish – he looks guilty even though he has been proclaimed innocent. And the reason that No 10 and the Justice Department gave James O’Brien for not publishing was ‘privacy’! I kid you not. As if they couldn’t redact any really personal and private stuff.
So – no change there! And this is deadly serious because we do need to prove to the British people that we have changed, that MP’s, Ministers etc cannot get away with it and must live and die by the same rules as the rest of the population. In fact, until we have earned back trust – we will just have to keep on proving ourselves and proving ourselves – over and over again.
Gordon – publish or be damned! Well – you’re already damned – but the rest of us who want to feel proud again of serving as MPs want real change. You have to publish. You have to demonstrate that the words of sorrow and contrition and change pouring out of your mouth were not just words.
And as for Shahid – he is now back in the fold as Communities Minister (I think) – and surely he deserves to be exhonerated publicly with the findings of the report and not begin his new ministership (if that’s a word) with any question marks over his past expenses.
Just a little note to say I will be judging the dog competition at Highgate’s “Fair in the Square” which will take place in historic Pond Square, London N6, on Saturday, June 13th from 12.30pm to 5.30pm. I hope the sun shines – and that everyone comes and has a good time. And no jokes about dogs please!
Busy day with the Equalities Bill in Parliament, so here’s our press release:
The Liberal Democrats were the main winners in the European elections in Haringey last night. The party added 4.7 per cent to its tally and dramatically closed the gap on Haringey Labour, whose vote slumped to its lowest ever share in a borough-wide election.
It was also a night of disaster for the local Tories, who shocked observers by slumping into fourth place, behind the Green Party.
Lib Dem Leader Robert Gorrie comments,
“I am delighted with the result, and I would like to thank everyone in Haringey who responded to the Lib Dems’ positive message on Europe. These results show we are in a neck-and-neck battle with Labour for control of Haringey Council. For the Tories, fourth place is yet another nail in their coffin, as local people know it is only the Lib Dems that can bring an end to 40 years of Labour rule here.”
Results:
Labour – 14,093 (28.8% – down 4.1%)
Lib Dems – 11,550 (23.6% – up 4.7%)
Greens – 8,528 (17.4% – up 3.4%)
Cons – 7,396 (15.1%, down 0.5%)
Others – 7,392 (15.1% – down 3.5%)
Lynne Featherstone 