Surgery all day! My latest column also gets published today – about life in Parliament compared with the GLA.
House of Commons v GLA
Q. What’s the difference between the House of Commons and the GLA?
A. Testosterone and Ken!
Looking for a slightly more substantive answer – there are several differences that hit you in the face from day one between Parliament and the London Assembly (GLA).
First – the seriousness with which the whole business of Parliament is taken by the media, by MPs, by the world outside, by the officers and by the doormen. Maybe that shouldn’t be the case – but it is. The world looks at the goings on of the House and takes notice in a way that just doesn’t happen at the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Secondly – and supporting the first point – are the levels of traditional practise and hierarchical deference which hang heavy in the Parliamentary corridors of power. It would seem that without nodding to the Speaker on entering or leaving the Chamber, without having to wait weeks for an office and a computer because everyone has to be serviced in order of importance (and/or order of swearing in unless you know the ‘right’ officer to skip the queue), without using the correct term of address for colleagues, without knowing when you can or can’t intervene, without rising to your feet at the end of every speech, without prayers at the start of each session, without the mace and the formality – clearly England, nay Britain, would fall! Tradition and deference are the watchword.
I preferred the GLA’s modernist approach and remember fighting against even having to stand in the chamber at City Hall every time you wished to make a speech. I liked the informality of calling Ken ‘Ken’ – and occasionally Mayor Livingstone. I liked being able simply to indicate to the chair that I wished to speak without having to look like a bobbing idiot. I liked the building better. The public spaces and the interweave of public with the members of the Assembly and the Mayor smelt of a new era.
Parliament stinks of the past. In Parliament the divide is absolute – you are a Member or you are a Stranger. It actually feels like a type of apartheid – which indeed it is.
And thus they intend to keep it. There is a point to some of the traditions. Having traditions can make the departure from them all the more significant or poignant – as with the Speaker’s beautiful gesture of coming down from his high seat to kiss Patsy Calton on the cheek when she took her oath just before her sad death.
But much of it is tradition for tradition sake – the need to hold onto the status quo and protect it against the onslaught of modernism. It’s the expression and form of holding the class system in place – albeit these days they clearly let anybody in!
I don’t have the time, patience or inclination to bother to take this on. I have my sights set on other challenges. But neither do I believe that something is more valuable, has deeper meaning or import because it is surrounded by all of this mumbo jumbo. If it needs all of this to make it seem important – then strip it away and lay bare the substance I say.
In the end the real and truly substantive difference between Parliament and the GLA is the power each institution wields. Parliament is the legislature of the nation (for the most part) whilst the GLA in the form of its directly elected Mayor has very few powers and those powers are severely restricted to very few areas of operation. That is what feels different, smells different and is different.
Ask me again in a year or so – I will probably have become part of the Establishment and will barely remember the brave new world of the GLA. The seduction will be complete!
Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill in committee
Two sessions on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill today. I have to introduce our amendments in what is a gigantic group of amendments, but Dominic Grieve goes first for the Tories. Our (Lib Dem) amendments are in three groups. One deals with the threshold for prosecution. Labour are changing one of the race definitions for prosecutions to another definition which would seem to need to lower the bar for such a prosecution but which the Minister, Paul Goggins, was arguing wasn’t a lowering of the bar.
It all gets very arcane (though no less important for that) very quickly – we went on to arguments about phrases such as ‘intent’ and ‘likely to likely’ as a level of probability, risk or recklessness.
I was relatively brief again (heartily welcomed I felt by most) and did refer to the whole thing being a ‘likely’ mess resulting in a ‘likely’ feast for lawyers.
And thus after numerous further arguments the sessions closed and the Bill will now go back to the House for its third reading.
Off in the event to the Haringey Race Equality Council’s AGM – where I say a few words to the assembled audience. All the communities are involved and it is always a pleasure to support all those involved in working to improve community issues and relationships in Haringey – just the best melting pot in anywhere in London in my view.
Rally against identity cards
Round off a busy day with a rally against ID cards in the evening. It’s organised by NO2ID – the campaign group now in full flight against the government’s proposals.
When I get there George Galloway is speaking and as he finishes I go up to my seat on the panel and have to immediately speak. The hall is absolutely packed and it is hot as hell. I deliver my speech (along the same lines as in the Commons debate – but better and more fully developed) and then it is Dominic Grieve and then Tony Benn.
It is a strange alliance that crosses any party lines – but all who care passionately about liberty and freedom. Benn is brilliant. Never thought I’d share a platform with him – how extraordinary is this thing called life.
Darfur and Incitement to Religious Hatred
International Development Questions – and I have Oral Question Number 4. I am asking the Minister about Darfur. The Chamber – at 11.55 when I get called to ‘put’ the question – is heaving as Prime Ministers’ Questions follows.
I ask the Government if they do not now recognise the need for the United Nations Security Council to increase the presence of the African Union and strengthen their mandate so that the level of protection is increased in Darfur. The situation there is so insecure and unstable that refugees and internally displaced persons are still unlikely to return. The Minister is nice about it – but basically says no.
Then it is Prime Ministers’ Questions – always a blast!
Then I am into the second session of the Committee Stage on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. I know that the following day, for the two Thursday sessions, Alistair (my Lib Dem colleague on the committee) is going to have to leave me on my own as he has to return to Orkney for a prior commitment. However, by the time he leaves just before the end of today’s session, all our amendments on which we have to lead will have been moved. So I will only have to interject on the Tory amendments and general arguments.
Best laid plans of mice and men … Dominic Grieve (for the Conservatives) makes a brilliant argument on one of the amendments – but it takes an hour – so Alistair has to leave and I am left to introduce amendments myself.
And I do. And it is absolutely terrifying. And it goes fine. I make the points – albeit briefly in comparison to my learned other members – and get out alive. I have always been thrown in the deep end – seems to be my destiny. I remember becoming Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when I had only visited one meeting in my life. I became Chair of Transport on the London Assembly – when I had never chaired anything in my life!
It’s always terrifying – but it is the best way on this earth to learn. So I guess I was grateful – but it was (even for me) a testing experience.
Mobile phone masts
Early meeting with Peter Wingate-Saul, the National Community Relations Manager at Crown Castle UK – who are a company who find sites for mobile telephone masts. He has asked for a meeting as he wants to put the mobile phone industry’s side of the case regarding health risks and how guidelines and government views are formed, on what authority and on whose advice.
I am pleased, as always, to hear all sides and have some sympathy in terms of the case he made for not making legislation based on people’s fears but rather making it based on substantive points. However, I am still not convinced that we can be sure there is no harm whatsoever from mobile phone masts or phones.
I am firm in my belief that proper planning processes should be applied to all masts and that until there is more information – preferable more definitive information – we would be wise to continue to be cautious on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. In fact I have backed an Early Day Motion in this regard this week. (There’s ane explanation of what EDMs are on the Parliament website).
One of the women in one of the local campaigns believes her child is already suffering radiation sickness and has had a test done on the roots of his hair which she says show positive. I have asked if there is an NHS hospital that is carrying out these tests – as it may be important to try and get a wider health survey of such evidence properly tested.
Parliament debates identity cards
Busy day as, after the committee stage on incitement to religious hatred, it’s the Second Reading debate on ID cards in the Chamber.
I am soooooooooo against ID cards – and desperate to get called to speak in the debate. The debate starts at 3.30pm and will conclude with a vote at 10pm. I know that I will have to sit in the Chamber for all that time – to have even a flying chance of catching Mr Speaker’s eye to get called. But it will be worth it.
Charles Clarke moves the proposed legislation – defending the indefensible. David Davis (Tory Shadow Home Secretary) then gets a go – and delivers a good speech. Unlike most of the Tories who only so recently in the election were for the introduction of ID cards – Davies was always against them. As power shifts from Michael Howard to the wannabe leaders – the wind has blown Tories into opposition. Latecomers – but nevertheless – finally on the side of the angels.
Then there are another couple of speeches before the Speaker comes to Mark Oaten – the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary. He gives a great speech – and then the debate moves on to back benchers who are limited to 10 minute speeches.
As the day wears on into night – I bob up and down as each speaker finishes hoping to be called. Hour after hour passes. The debate in itself is fascinating – and many, indeed most, of the speeches from all sides of the House (including Labour) are against ID cards. Ironically – the outcome will depend on Labour rebels – and whilst the words are strong, I doubt whether the votes will follow in adequate numbers to defeat the Government at this stage.
Without rehearsing the whole argument – the bill falls on so many counts, one is spoilt for choice as to what to oppose. (There’s plenty of good background on the arguments at www.no2id.net).
For me – the key is civil liberties. This proposed legislation flies in the face of everything I believe in. I was born free and thought I was innocent until proven guilty. I have the right – inalienable right in my view – to walk out of my front door without the need to prove anything to anyone so long as I cause no harm. I do not need the Government’s permission in the form of an ID card – a license to do this – let alone a license that will cost between one and three hundred pounds, is technologically unsound and will lead to a database of information about me that no one – not state nor anyone – has a right to know! I will be treated like a criminal. I will be fingerprinted and information on me stored on a national database – information that no one needs to know or has a right to know.
OK – you get my tone on this!
So there I am, bobbing up and down, as hour after hour passes. I hold the front bench for the Home Affairs team – whilst Mark and Alistair (my Lib Dem numbers 1 and 2 on the team – I am number 3) go to eat. As the clock approaches 8.30pm – I am becoming despondent about my chances of being called – as more people are still rising than there is time to call them. Suddenly Mr Deputy Speaker (the Speakers change throughout the session) announces that because so many people still want to speak – the speeches will now be cut to 5 minutes for the next hour. At 9.20pm – finally – I get called.
I make my key points: civil liberties, the problems with righting wrong information giving history of IT problems and the discrimination that will follow as ID cards become compulsory (which they will – as sure as eggs is eggs) towards members of ethnic communities who from my experience with police stop and search will be stopped and asked to produce the card in the end.
I cite what has happened with DNA and how now innocent people’s DNA is being kept on a database and how much more black DNA is being stored than white DNA in London.
Then we are into the winding up speeches. The Labour man – Tony McNulty – chooses to attack me from the Despatch Box as he closes, calling me irresponsible and wrong. So I must be doing something right!
Then the Speaker calls for Ayes – and there is a roar of ‘ayes’ from the Labour benches. Then the Speaker calls for the Noes – and there is a roar of ‘no’ from the Lib Dems and the Tories. It’s all very tribal and traditional, but we have the shouting match before the Speaker calls out ‘Division’ – and the bells start ringing as we pour into the lobbies to vote in person. Sadly – not enough Labour rebels rebel – and the second reading is passed. The Bill now passes into its Committee Stage.
Amazing to have had a voice and a vote (however tiny) in opposing something I believe will destroy our way of life and begin the journey to a police state. And – many, many local residents have contacted me to say they care passionately too. The weight of opinion in my postbag is very clear.
Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill – committee stage
First experience of Committee Stage proceedings at Parliament – this is part of the legislative passage through the Commons of a Bill. Today it is the first session on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. Alistair Carmichael – my LibDem colleague – is leading for us in committee and I am his number two. The idea is that I learn the ropes so that when I lead the Violent Crime Reduction Bill through Committee stage in the Autumn I will know what I am doing.
The first thing that strikes me is that I need to be a lawyer. The whole process imitates court proceeding where each line of the proposed Bill is examined – with amendments laid down on virtually every point. Each amendment is then ‘moved’ (introduced verbally) by the person (and therefore party) who has laid down that particular amendment. All sides then argue the case on each point – point by point – and from what I could see – at extreme length.
So far so good!
The Bill is (in my view) a well-meaning attempt by the Government to try and stop people inciting people to hate other people because of their religious beliefs – that is hatred of the believer not the belief.
My experience of religion (as an agnostic) is that quite a lot of religion, although not necessarily practised as preached, is about hating others and condemning those with different beliefs. And therein lies the difficulties in this Bill. Quite what is it that should be protected – and what is it that people shouldn’t be able to do?
Labour say they want to make things equal in terms of the fact that Jews and Sikhs are covered by the existing legislation. But that’s because Jews (and Sikhs) are different to all other religions in that the religion is inseparable from the race. The counter argument is that the law covers all races and for them it covers them if the incitement is racial – but not religious.
Lib Dems have put what is called the ‘Lester Amendment’ which helps the Bill give protection to what we believe the Bill is actually aimed at – Muslims who post 9/11 have suffered abuse and hatred in its wake. The proposition is that they are being attacked as ‘Muslims’ but the hatred is really racially motivated rather than religiously motivated. Therefore the amendment seeks to cover those who use religion as a ‘proxy’ for racial hatred. But it keeps freedom of speech – including the ability to disagree with and criticise people’s religious beliefs.
Ok – I am not going to try and describe the ins and outs of each of the four sessions – but you can see the way this is going.
LIB DEM COMMENT ON DEPARTURE OF DAVID WARWICK
Commenting on the latest reports over the departure of Haringey Council’s Chief Executive David Warwick, Lib Dem Leader Neil Williams said:
“These issues raise huge concerns. I have asked Haringey Council to release all the documentation in relation to the funding bid from Haringey Business Development Agency (HBDA), including any concerns expressed by officers over whether this substantial grant of funding is in the best interests of Haringey Council taxpayers.”
Local MP Lynne Featherstone adds:
“The Labour Leader’s term of office has brought the ruling Labour group to a state of total meltdown in just a year – and now we have a council without a Chief Executive as well. What potential chief executive is gong to want to work for Haringey Labour when they are in such a total shambles? It is hugely damaging.”
For further information on the controversy over the Chief Executive’ departure and the HBDA grant, see the Ham and High.
ARCHWAY ROAD – LIB DEM COUNCILLOR CALLS FOR COUNCIL TO ACT OVER NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Highgate councillor and Lib Dem environment spokesperson Bob Hare has called on Haringey Council to meet with resident groups from Archway Road to discuss the implementation of the Archway Road Neighbourhood Plan.
The plan, which was finalised and adopted by the Council several years ago, outlines objectives to improve the environment of the area. Cllr Hare is concerned that since the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan few real improvements have occurred. He has written to the Council’s environment spokesperson seeking an immediate meeting between the Council and key groups in the Archway Road.
Cllr Hare says that action needs to be taken to improve the environment for the communities living along the Archway Road. He says that for too long Archway Road has been neglected and overlooked for regeneration projects because of its position – situated in largely affluent Highgate.
Cllr Hare says that there are many good, successful businesses on the road and with support from agencies and the Council in particular, problems with graffiti, rubbish and shop front design could be properly addressed to help it reach its potential and become a real asset to the borough.
Cllr Hare (Highgate) comments:
“Feedback from our residents surveys over the past couple of years shows that residents have many issues regarding Archway Road that they feel Haringey Council is not addressing – graffiti, pedestrian safety and litter to name just a few.
“The Council must meet with residents to really appreciate that more work needs to be done.”
Lynne Featherstone 