42 days, David Davis and Nick Clegg

I am truly sick of the Westminster Village sneering attitude to David Davis. Quite frankly – I don’t care if David Davis is doing this for truth, justice and liberty or because he was never going to get Home Secretary, is a loner, egomaniac or because he hates David Cameron – all doing the rounds as explanations.

What I do care about is the issue – and if his actions help secure the same outcome that I want, then good for him – and I don’t see why I should have to pretend that I don’t really agree with him – or have to pretend that him helping to achieve what I want too isn’t a good thing – just because we are in different parties or disagree about 1,001 other issues.

Why does the issue of 42 days detention without trial matter so much? Quite simply – because locking an innocent person up for a month and a half is an awful, ghastly thing to do. Imagine it happening to yourself. How it can wreck jobs, pull apart relationship and leave a deep and abiding sense of anger and hostility.

And we know that when the police and other authorities think they know that someone is guilty – they ain’t always right. That’s why people get acquitted. Even with the best will in the world, mistakes are made. And we know too – the best will often is missing. We’ve seen in the fight against Irish terrorism how some police were so convinced they knew who was guilty that evidence was forged – to frame people for crimes they didn’t commit. We know we can’t just assume that all involved in security matters follow the rules and do their job properly – look at the repeated incidents of secret documents being lost!

So locking anyone up for any protracted period of time without a trial should only be a matter of very last resort. That’s not the situation we’re in. The government has left a whole host of other approaches untouched – such as changing the rules on what can happen pre and post charge. Or indeed taking the obvious step to deal with the extra complexities of terrorism investigations these days (involving many computers and many countries and so on) – that of giving extra resources to the police and security services.

If the problem is investigations taking too long – put more resources in I say. Double win if that’s done – not only are you able to keep to the current timescales – but if you’re investigating an outrage or would-be outrage, the quicker you do it the more chance there is of stopping other outrages too through what you discover in the investigation. Let’s not forget, Labour managed to whip up some extra billions just before a by-election polling day to attempt to deal with the political fallout from their 10p tax policies. So do we really think they’ve exhausted every avenue to fund quicker investigations into terrorism?

Go back to imaging your life. If you’ve got a diary for the next month or two take a look at it. And then imagine being locked up for 42days without being told why you’re being held. And think of the impact it would have on you. And then remember how very many of the people held at the moment end up being released without charge or being acquitted in court.

That’s why this issue cuts to the very core of the point of having elections and Parliament in the first place. If MPs aren’t there to protect people from the almost inevitable demands for greater and greater powers over them from all parts of the state, what is the point of much of what we do?

That’s why I agree with David Davis on the issue, and why I have a sneaking admiration for the insight or bravery or zaniness or call it whatever you will that he showed in forcing the 42 days issue to stay at the centre of political debate by forcing a by-election.

I don’t envy Nick Clegg and others having to make the quick judgement about how to react to his resignation. I think Nick and they got it right – there really are some issues which are more important the inter-party disagreements. And events so far have shown his judgement to be much surer than that of many of the critics.

No, Davis’s resignation on the issue didn’t hand Cameron a media bonanza – just look at all the coverage of splits in the Conservatives.

No, it wasn’t a pointless resignation – just look at the way those in the Conservative Party who wanted to back down over 42 days have instead themselves been backed into a corner.

No – it wasn’t a one-day wonder – just look at the continuing attention being given to the issue.

And above all – yes, it has been possible for David Davis to keep this attention on the civil liberties grounds on which we agree with him. (Imagine if there were a Liberal Democrat candidate against him – by necessity they would be having to campaign on a whole range of other issues in order to give people a reason to vote for them rather than for Davis – and that would have taken the attention away from that very civil liberties issue).

On each of these points, Nick and other’s judgement so far has been proved right – and events are offering us the opportunity to make a major step forward in the fight for our civil liberties. Real protection for our civil liberties doesn’t just come from electing Liberal Democrats – it comes from moving the terms of debate for all political parties. Civil liberties are part of the very Liberal Democrat DNA and to me helping make that happen matters far more than the usual instinct of”must fight every election, must fight every election, must fight every election.”

Earlham Primary School visits Parliament

Earlham Primary School visit to ParliamentThe past two Mondays – I have taken young people from Earlham Primary School on a tour of the House of Commons – or rather Ed (my Head of Office) has been the tour guide and I have accompanied them.

It’s followed by an hour of questions to me by the kids. I love it when my schools come up. Usually they join an official tour – but this time they left it too late so they got the DIY version from me!

Polyclinics: panacea or plague?

Polyclinics are turning out to be one of those slow-burning political issues which, although getting the occasional piece of news coverage, have really been bubbling away in the public’s mind and concerns for a long time before really grabbing the forefront of political attention.

The possible introduction of polyclinics has been an issue in Haringey for some time now, and it’s a topic I’ve blogged about moderately regularly – but nearly each time I’ve been struck when going to research further information on the topic or to see what other people have been saying, how little attention overall the issue has been getting. Yes, there’s been the occasional news story and occasional reference in Parliament, but for an issue that could massively alter the way tens of millions of people get their health care via the NHS, it’s really been pretty low key.

The recent news that over 1 million people have signed a petition on the issue – along with the major Kings Fund report into the topic – may well change that now!

I certainly hope so, because the introduction of Polyclinics, or Neighbourhood Health Centres, or whatever the government has tried to re-brand them as this week is the biggest health issue facing my constituency – and many others – at the moment.

The idea behind these centres has some attractions – bring different health services together on one site so that you can move quickly and easily between those services without the usual delays (go to one place, get referred to another, wait for appointment) or the extra travel.

Haringey’s Primary Care Trust has chosen to be a trail blazer for Polyclinics and has enthusiastically adopted the idea. The current proposal is to close a number of local GP’s surgeries and consolidate them into four or five Polyclinics.

And that’s where the concerns start. Will these become large impersonal services where we are no longer able to see our own local doctor? We need guarantees that the relationship with your doctor will continue. Any severing the doctor/patient relationship would be a travesty. Hardly anyone wants to explain a deeply personal medical problem to a complete stranger.

Consolidation of GP’s will undoubtedly increase journey times for many people wishing to see their GP, and force them to take either public transport or their car. The heaviest users of primary care have low levels of car ownership (senior citizens 69% no car; lone parents 42%).

It’s easy for those of us who have no trouble getting around to under-estimate just what a burden it can be to extend someone’s 10 minute journey into a 30 minute with two bus changes journey.

The site of the old Hornsey Hospital is where one of the proposed polyclinics is to be built. This site is currently served by only one bus route and it takes Transport for London anything from two years to establish a bus route. This means that those with the most need would most likely have the least access to the service. I met with TfL and raised the issue of public transport provision to this site several years ago and recently raised it with Peter Hendy – the Transport Commissioner for London. But as yet – no firm plans.

Sorting out adequate access to the services should be central to any polyclinics plan – not an afterthought to play around with after the service is in place and people are already suffering from poor transport links.

The recent report by the Kings Fund concluded that there were “serious risks to access to care” posed by consolidation of primary health care and that “it is unlikely that the gains in access to some services currently provided in hospitals are worth the losses for primary care patients.”
Accessibility of service, both in terms of getting an appointment and getting to the appointment, is vital – especially as 90% of access to the NHS is via the primary care route.

And then there is the question of whether polyclinics will really add to our services and facilities? Or will consolidation mean – as it has in so many other areas – cuts?

That brings me to the problems over how the policy is being pushed through – without proper consultation or information. It’s a central imposition of Labour’s ideas on to local communities. Local health bodies have been instructed by central government that they must have polyclinics in every community. This is a classic top-down, Whitehall imposed centralising solution to local problems.

As with our post offices, we were promised that local opinion would be taken account of through consultation. Yet so far we have not been told precisely which services will be provided by polyclinics. This renders the consultation process pretty meaningless as we cannot make an informed choice about what we will gain. And so we are marching on blind – not knowing and having to keep our fingers crossed.

Liberal Democrats demand stop to pedestrian crossing problem

Council neglect has contributed to making pedestrian crossings unusable in the London Borough of Haringey say local Liberal Democrats. Many residents using crossings face the prospect of wading through ponds created by the collection of water due to lack of drainage.

Liberal Democrat councillor Martin Newton has called on Haringey Council to take action to resolve the drainage problem and has criticised Haringey Council for their lack of care for pedestrians especially visually impaired users.

Cllr Martin Newton, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Transport and Highways, comments:

“Many of these crossing points have raised paving to alert visually impaired pedestrians to the change between pavements and the road, but bad engineering means that they are led into a large pond. Anyone pushing a buggy or shopping trolley will also struggle to negotiate these crossings and remain dry.”

Haringey Council has now agreed that work to repair drainage problems is needed and some minor work has started but Liberal Democrats say that the borough-wide problem needs action and will be writing to the director responsible to demand further repairs.

“This is typical Haringey Labour muddle – not thinking through a job properly leaving residents in deep water. The Council must take action to make existing pedestrian crossing points fit for purpose and designed so water drains away and also ensure that this is thought about in future for any new crossing points.”

Lynne Featherstone MP adds:

“Many local residents depend on these crossing to get them across our roads safely.It might surprise Haringey Council to learn that people like to go out on wet days too.The Council must take action now.”

Liberal Democrats urge Haringey Council to act on Post Office closures

Local Liberal Democrats have demanded that Haringey Council puts its money where its mouth is to save Haringey’s beleaguered Post Office network. Following the closure of Ferme Park Road and Weston Park Road Post Office this week, Liberal Democrats have urged Haringey Council to honour its promises to help.

In March 2008, Haringey Council leader George Meehan promised he would consider options to save Post Offices but since then Haringey Council has been silent on the issue.

With more Post Offices set to close, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Haringey, Cllr Robert Gorrie, has written an open letter to Cllr Meehan to demand action from Haringey Council to save the vital community resource for the residents of Haringey.

Cllr Robert Gorrie, Leader of Haringey Liberal Democrat Group, comments:

“The Council promised residents that they would do everything to ensure no Post Office would close in Haringey. The silence since then has been deafening. It is time for them to put their money where their mouth is.”

Lynne Featherstone MP added:

“With Post Offices closing as we speak, the Leader of the Council urgently needs to let the people of Haringey know what he is going to do to save these vital services.There have been plenty of fine words, now is the time for action.”

Bringing understanding between those of different faiths

I haven’t blogged about being a “parliamentor” to three young women from the Three Faiths Forum. It was born to work at friendship and understanding between Jew, Christian and Muslim.

For a year nine groups of three young people (one from each of those faiths) has been mentored by one of nine parliamentors as they developed a project – and at the same time learned about each other.

Amina, Eva and Michele were assigned me as their mentor. Each month they have come to spend time with me at Parliament or in Hornsey & Wood Green. What a bright and talented trio my girls are!

Yesterday was the end of the year presentations with each group presenting their project to the assembled guests at Parliament. My group, in the end, chose to make their project about asylum seekers.

They gave wonderful examples of what people coming here have brought to our country (including Marks & Spencer) and went on to explore the work they had done with the Refugee Council and the difficulties of being without state support, without medical care, without anything – held in limbo (or worse) whilst the appalling Home Office fiddles for years before delivering an outcome.

So well done! Daniella (a saint herself and responsible for running the whole caboodle) told me that my three had started barely being able to talk to each other – and now were inseparable friends. That’s the real value – that understanding that we all as humans have far more in common then we have in differences will stay with them all their lives and colour their understanding of the religious divides – and never let them be human divides.

Just a word to say thank you to the Sternberg Foundation who part-funded this project. It is hugely worthwhile work – and none of it could happen without funding.

Congrats to Vince Cable

Went to the House Magazine annual awards last night. The House Magazine – is just that – the magazine of the Commons and Lords. The voters are the MPs and Peers and there’s a range of categories. Just a quick big up for Vince Cable – who not that surprisingly won Opposition Politician of the Year. He is such a star! Congrats to Vince.

The number of female MPs

I blogged previously about the importance of having more women actively involved in politics – that is, actively involved in the processes which take so many decisions that hugely impact on all our lives.

And yet – sit down and read the rulebooks and you’ll see that women have as equal a right to vote as men, an equal right to stand for office, and so on. Despite this, the outcomes of our electoral systems are pretty consistently to produce groups of elected public officials who are overwhelmingly men – especially in Parliament.

Why? What are the barriers that women face to entering and contributing to Parliament? Well – there are obviously issues such as those around affordable, flexible childcare; a problem that many women face when juggling a career and their family, not just MPs. (Yes, it’s an issue that men face too, but disproportionately the care burdens fall on women – and so have much more of an impact on their careers).

Parliament and politics in general is still seen as a “man’s game” with the contribution of women often sidelined. It is sadly still the case in politics as it is in so many areas of life for women, that it’s all about what a woman wears, or indeed doesn’t wear, rather than what comes out of her mouth. For example when Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, gave her first statement in the House of Commons about the terror attacks on Glasgow Airport, some in the media seemed to be far more concerned with how much cleavage she was showing, instead of what she actually had to say.

I wear a suit whenever I’m in Parliament as I don’t want people to comment, I want people to respect me as an MP and listen to what I have to say however I should be able to wear what I want, and what I wear should have no effect on how I am received either in Parliament or in the media, yet the dominance of men means that sadly something that a woman always has to be conscious of.

Sure – I raise a smile when there’s the Valentine’s Day list of sexiest MPs in Parliament – but that’s a self-identified bit of fun for a moment – and one that picks on both men and women.

Men and women do frequently approach issues and think through them in different ways. That diversity should be a strength to be cherished rather than – as our political system often seems to view it – something to be squeezed out.

In some cases all-women shortlists have resulted in more women being elected to Parliament. However they can be seen as a short-term solution to a very substantial problem – in that they don’t resolve the fundamental obstacles that women face when trying to enter public office. Indeed, it could be that the number of women in Parliament will decline in the next election due to this artificial increase in number created by the use of these shortlists in the last general election.

I feel that the real long-term solution to the inequality we see within politics is to challenge women’s inequality in all areas of society – in the workplace, in the education system, and so on, in order to ensure that women are seen as – and see themselves as – equals in all aspects of life.

It is not just in Parliament and politics where women face inequality: 96% of executive directors in the U.K.’s top 100 companies are men; 30,000 women a year lose their job just because they become pregnant; and women working full time still earn on average 17% less than men. We have had the Equal Pay Act for forty years and still the pay gap is glaringly evident – 140,000 cases are in line, waiting for adjudication at a tribunal. It isn’t working. (Though do you notice how this huge backlog isn’t a matter of political scandal? That says something to me very telling about the priorities of our political system.)

But there also needs to be a discussion about men’s place in society. I’m sure many women would be supportive of a man that wanted to be a stay at home father or would just like to share the parenting role 50-50. However it would be difficult to find organisations and businesses that feel the same way.

Legislation needs to enable men to take on an equal share of parental duties; this is why the Lib Dems have proposed transferable maternity leave and for businesses to allow more flexible working hours for both parents.

In the immediate future, though, power is in the hands of women who want to get in to politics and want to get elected to help change things – whether it’s about empowering using their voice in their own lives and communities, becoming a local councillor – a great and local way to start on a political path – or aiming for Parliament, an Assembly or another position in public life.
I often say to women groups that I speak to – remember the planning. If a woman wants a career as an architect or a doctor – and she wants marriage and children – she plans her timing over a ten year period. I say to women – it is the same for politics – plan and act with a horizon measured in years. And have fun along the way!

Liberal Democrats criticise gap in Children's Centre plan

Liberal Democrat councillors have attacked Haringey Council for failing the children of Fortis Green after it was revealed that the area will not have access to a new Children’s Centre.

New plans unveiled by Haringey Council on Tuesday (17 June 2008) showed that proposals for building phase three of the borough’s Children’s Centres failed to provide a centre for the parents and children in Fortis Green as well as Alexandra and Crouch End – the only three wards in Haringey without one.

In February Cllr Engert, at a meeting of Haringey Council’s ‘watchdog’ committee, asked for details of Haringey Council’s children’s centre plans in which it replied that Haringey Council were “committed to a children’s centre provision in Fortis Green”.

Cllr Gail Engert, Liberal Democrat Children, Schools and Families spokesperson comments:

“Clearly Haringey Council has gone back on their word. In February they said that they were committed to a Children’s centre but now they have let down the children and parents of Fortis Green. I am also extremely concerned that Crouch End and Alexandra are being left out and fully expect these wards to be included in the proposals on Children’s Centres in December.”

Cllr Martin Newton, Liberal Democrat (Fortis Green) adds:

“Fortis Green is a ward that contains pockets of deprivation and an increasing population. Liberal Democrats have continually identified the need in Fortis Green for a new children’s centre and will continue to press Haringey Council.”

Success as disabled resident gets fine refunded

After forceful backing by local MP Lynne Featherstone, Mrs Bennett, a disabled Highgate resident, on Friday received the fantastic news that her £604 parking fine is going to be fully refunded by Transport for London (TfL).

The fine was incurred after the blue badge holder parked in a disabled bay with a concreted sign facing the wrong way, making it impossible for her to see that she was parked outside the allowed time. Responding to a letter from Ms Featherstone, TfL also promised to urgently review the current high level of clamping and towing, and guaranteed that no blue badge holders in the future would have their cars immobilised.

Elizabeth Bennett comments:

“I’m so relieved, this is such a weight off my mind, and my previous attempts to get the issue resolved were futile until Lynne stepped in. It’s a real relief to know that you can turn to your MP when you have issues with the authorities.”

Lynne Featherstone adds:

“I’m absolutely thrilled that TfL have come to their senses and refunded this huge fine – some disabled people are completely dependent on their cars and such an honest mistake should not be so heavily penalised. It’s also great that they have promised not to clamp or tow away any car with a blue badge, it’s common sense – and I am delighted to see that TfL agrees!”