Tag Archives: charles clarke

Terrorism, CPZs and getting people back to work

Posted on by

Not a whole lot to report as largely confined to sick bed, with much time spent watching the news. I observed Hazel Blears, whom I shadow in Parliament – she was starting a round of visits to hard to reach Muslims (as opposed to the usual spokespersons) in towns across the country. Good idea – but why have we waited so long? So much air time has been given to the extremist views of groups that most Muslims have scant regard for. This emphasis has contributed to the fevered atmosphere and probably encouraged them even more. I get into trouble with our press office as I couldn’t go to do interviews on the weekend and missed calls to do the Today program – separated from my phone which unhelpfully was set on silent downstairs in the kitchen – where I wasn’t.

Terrorism on the TV news is interwoven with man floating around the heavens with DIY tools trying to repair a spaceship. I so wouldn’t like to be one of those astronauts. I would be convinced I was going to die on re-entry and even more shaky about making makeshift repairs on the hoof. I wish them well on their return. I know it’s expensive – but I love space exploration. It’s a frontier – and we don’t have that many – and it’s so good to lift your eyes above the daily grind – and the horrors of how to deal with terror in our midst.

Al Qaeda’s No 2 appears in a video broadcast by Al Jazeera saying basically that we in London are targets because Tony went to war in Iraq. Well – there are many reasons I believe Tony should go – and indeed Iraq is one of them. However, it cannot come at the behest of an enemy. And – he has just been re-elected to government by the people of this country (a democracy, however flawed the voting system). Opportunism by Al Qaeda is no way to decide our country’s governance.

I am more concerned by the proposals Tony came forward with yesterday – the new terror laws are draconian but more importantly may be unworkable. We British (and that includes everyone!) pride ourselves on our tolerance and fair play and many feel that our tolerance has spawned monsters – or allowed them to spawn.

And so we face one of the greatest challenges of our time – how can we tolerate the intolerant? We clearly feel our good nature has been abused – so the conundrum: how do we retain our essence of free speech and fair play when others don’t abide by the rules of that particular game?

I am not automatically against any new laws on terror – but I do feel we generally have enough laws.

On incitement to terrorism – define terrorism. On deportation – Charles Clarke to be the deciding factor? Arbiter of who stays and who goes? And let us assume we currently (for the most part and giving them the benefit of the doubt) have a benign government – but… And what are the criteria? And why should we ban those who are banned in the US? We are a different country and what the US finds unacceptable we should examine very carefully – not automatically jump to their tune.

And as for our ‘arrangements’ with countries where human rights are an issue – and so raising problems with us deporting people to those countries – who will monitor those ‘agreements’? Countries with poor records on human rights are not going to change because of a piece of paper.

One break from this issue – on Thursday evening I leapt from my sick-bed to go to a CPZ (controlled parking zone) meeting. This one came off the back of a petition from residents asking for one in three or four roads in the very west of Haringey, affected significantly by the introduction of a CPZ on the Barnet side of the border in East Finchley.

The Labour Executive member is there and the senior council officer. Everyone has their say. There are the usual rants about Haringey Council using CPZs as a milch cow. Not often I stand up for the council – but Haringey’s charges at GBP25 per annum for a resident permit are the cheapest in London. But overall the meeting is very positive – and the outcome is an agreement to proceed next year to a two-zone consultation.

There was a huge area consulted on in 2003 – and as with all large CPZ consultations, those few with the existing problem wanted one but the vast tract of people in the rest of the consultation who did not have a problem did not. Anyway – a successful meeting and we will see how that one proceeds.

One bloke raised the issue of roads where lots of people have off-street parking and therefore not needing to park would vote ‘no’ to a proposal and therefore unbalance the result unfairly. I used a – what I believe (!) – is a really good example of how they might approach such an issue.

I have just had the consultation on the proposed extension to the Highgate Village CPZ. Most of our road (including me) has off-street parking – and there are only very limited on-street parking available for those residents without anyway. One resident of the street called meeting to discuss the consultation. I couldn’t go – but he posted the minutes. Firstly – they agreed to get the council officer down to see if the on-street parking spaces could be increased by slightly altering the design etc – and that could happen. Secondly – those residents in the street who were desperate for the extension (because everyone parks in our road) made their case to us, their neighbours, to all vote for the CPZ as their lives would be impossible without a CPZ as they were not luck (as the rest of us were) to have off-street parking. As good neighbours – we all supported those in need. Good community spirit and lack of selfishness!

On Friday I did my surgery at Wood Green library until lunchtime as usual – and then went off to meet Haringey Alzheimer’s Society who wanted to introduce themselves to me. Strangely – Haringey Council and Haringey Primary Care Trust don’t fund them – whereas that is how most local branches are funded and needless to say they need funding after next year.

Then I meet Bob Cottingham of the Highgate and Muswell Hill pensioners group. I think Bob is fantastic and whilst he himself says that age is slowing him down (I was too polite to ask his!), his mind is still as sharp as a razor. Apart from discussing the new Pensioners’ Charter (which he will send to me) we have an intense discussion about the Middle East, Jenny Tonge and terrorism.

As ever with the Middle East – my view has always been right down the middle – a homeland for Palestine and security and safety for Israel. My views generally make me no friends with either lobby as both have strangely enough a kind of Bush approach – that you’re with ’em or against ’em. I will continue to listen to all arguments – but to date remain convinced that the rights and wrongs of history deliver us nowhere – and any solution will have to deliver enough of what each side wants to have a flying chance of success.

I then dash off to ‘Working Links’, an organisation involved in helping the long-term unemployed back into work. I have to say – fabulous organisation. This one is a private/public partnership – I know, wash my mouth out with soap given my past comments about other private/public partnerships. But if it works – use it. I am not ideologically committed to absolutes – except in the case of particular public services – but this seems a good place to bring in private expertise.

As you walk through the door – the environment sings optimism and enthusiasm – upbeat, modern, clean and bright. But as in all things (at least that’s my view) the success of such projects rests entirely with the staff. It’s people – it’s always people. And the young consultants’ who ran each section were all absolute stars. Their two directors were equally enthusiastic and had clearly been responsible for creating this beneficial atmosphere.

They basically take people from a number of sources and spend 26 weeks supporting a tailor made individual package to help them back to work. Hurrah! Ten out of ten to them. I cannot bear seeing people who hav
e
just become so dependent on the state to sort their life that they no longer even think of doing things for themselves or getting out of the forlorn situations that have become their lives.

My bathing costume

Posted on by

I pass Simon Hughes on route from one part of Commons to another – and as he passes he turns and says ‘loved your review’! As he had a wicked grin on his face and I didn’t have a clue what he was talking about – I asked my Head of Office, Andrew, to find out.

It turned out to be a column by Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail writing about Parliament yesterday. I quote:

“A less generous eye might have fallen on the blinking figure of Charles Clarke, stretched so hard at the Home Office in recent days.

“It might hover, too, over the currently reduced form of Charles Kennedy – not to mention the outfit of a glamorous new Lib Dem MP called Lynne Featherstone, who was wearing an outfit that resembled a bathing costume.

“For spectacle Miss Featherstone’s top was matched only by an extraordinary, glowing object halfway down the Government front bench. This turned out to be the sunburnt bald head of John Reid, Defence Secretary.”

I desperately try to think about the decency of my attire the previous day. I was pretty sure that, although I didn’t wear my usual combination of dark trouser suit with jacket and white T-shirt, I hadn’t entirely lost the plot and worn a swimsuit. I had indeed, although unusually, worn a dress – it was a sweltering day. But to me – it was my formal summer dress (grey and discreet) – and although it has no sleeves and is not high cut at the neck, it is virtually knee length and very respectable. I remember wearing it with its matching coat to meet the Queen when she opened City Hall.

When I was young, I used to get upset at such comments – or indeed – wolf whistles as I walked past building sites. Now at my advanced age – I am simply grateful. Thank you Quentin – I say!

I stick around for the Tory Opposition Debates in the afternoon and evening – but there is an ‘incident’. On the information screens around Parliament, moving text along the bottom informs us that entrance to the Commons is barred to all for the time being because of an ‘incident ongoing’.

David Heath whispers to me in the chamber that the story doing the rounds is the police are chasing a suspected bomber along the South Bank – no idea if that was the case. My pager goes saying because of the incident there are no votes tonight – so I go home around 9pm. I get home around 9.50pm at which point my pager goes again informing me that votes are expected at 10pm. Well – I can’t get back quite that quick! Next day Whips apologise for the cock-up.

Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by

Arrive City Hall to take part in ceremonious signing of Book of Condolences following last Thursday’s terrorist attack on London.

A rabbi comes up to me and started to harangue me suggesting that I (presumably as a Liberal Democrat) should go to Jenny Tonge and ask her to make the same statement she made about understanding suicide bombers now to our home-grown suicide bombers.

I understand the point he was making – but felt it totally inappropriate moment to raise it. I generally end up with both Israeli and Palestinian being cross with me whatever I say in such cases – as I passionately believe that only a solution which gives enough of what each side needs (a two-state or an equally shared one-state) will ever work and cannot bear the repeated calls on history which can stretch back centuries with the old rights and wrongs paraded endlessly – getting nowhere. Only moving forward together will ever create peace.

OK – rant over.

We go upstairs to the chamber. One by one various people come forward to sign – Bob Kiley (Commissioner of Transport), Tony McNulty (Minister), Trevor Phillips (Chair of the CRE), Peter Hendy (Director Surface Transport, TfL), Tim O’Toole (Managing Director of Surface Transport TfL) and on.

It was very moving – very silent – very appropriate.

When the main group had finished, everyone else lines up to sign. I don’t know what others wrote – I wrote something like ‘Love is stronger than hate. Love will triumph’.

Then off to Westminster for the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. I sit through the debate as having taken this bill through committee stage with my colleague from the Home Affairs team, Alistair Carmichael, I want to support him and also speak if I can get called.

Prior to the debate – there is a statement by the Prime Minister. I don’t agree with him on many issues – but he is head and shoulders above the others in Labour in performance terms. Maybe it goes with the territory. For sure – Gordon doesn’t have it in that same way. The statement updates us on the situation with regard to the attacks and progress made. There is this time more of a debate and Charles K does dare to raise the issue of Iraq – which all steered clear of last time which Charles Clarke made his emergency statement on the day of the attack.

At 4.30pm-ish we begin the debate on religious hatred. During the debate I pop out to the lobby where I have received a green card from – slipped into me in the chamber. A green card is filled in with the details of someone (a constituent usually) who has come to Central Lobby to lobby their MP. By the time I can get out – about 40 minutes after receiving the card – the person is nowhere to be found. However, I do bump into Pastor Nims (who leads the Peace Alliance) and he tells me that about 3-4,000 black religious leaders are outside Parliament to lobby against the Labour Government’s Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill.

Hurrah I say – about time everyone realised that the people that Labour set out to help by trying to stop incitement to hatred on religious grounds – will be exactly those who find they cannot practise their religion freely any longer.

Many of the arguments during the debate were repeats of, by now, well-rehearsed points. But I felt moved to intervene on Chris Bryant who was making a point (I think) about the difference between the belief and the believer – because Labour believe it is possible to hate a religion without hating the person who believes in that religion. Chris kindly lets me intervene to make the point that if you have love in your heart – then you may well be able to hate the belief not the believer – but if you have hatred in your heart – then the niceties of that distinction fly out the window. Basically – thugs and creeps likely to have religious hatred stirred up in them won’t give a toss about that very academic difference!

The debate is scheduled to finish at 10.00pm sharp – at which point Mr Speaker rises to his feet to call the vote. I am called finally at 9.58pm.

‘I’ll be brief, Mr Speaker’ makes the House laugh – sadly removing precious seconds. With little time – I make the point about the unintended consequences of this bill rebounding on those it sought to help – hence the presence of the thousands outside fearing loss of their freedom to practise their religion freely and simply state that legislation can’t stop hatred.

The LibDem amendment (supported by the Tories) fell – and so I voted against the bill – which I think will be a disaster.

Thursday in London

Posted on by

I have big boxes to bring back from Parliament – so for the first time – drive in. I give my daughter (Jenna) a lift to Bedford Square where she is studying. We leave at 9.00am. Shortly after begin reports on the radio about a major incident at a tube station – a power surge is being mooted as the cause. Other reports of other incidents at other stations are now being reported. I am trying to imagine why a power surge would be surging to this effect – given the amount of safety devices which must exist to stop surges surging.

Jenna and I think it is a terrorist attack despite what is being said on the radio. I hear Christian Woolmar (rail and tube pundit) verbalising on the radio the exact thoughts running through my brain. All the hallmarks of a terrorist attack. The National Grid is not reporting any signs of electrical surges in London. Cut outs cut in when there is a power surge. Christian hypothesizes that this is a terrorist attack.

We have always believed that the tube would be a key target. We have always known that G8 would be a ‘high alert’ status day/period. Add it all up together with the new report of an eyewitness who says he has just seen the top blown off of a bus in Woburn Place – and any last doubts have fled.

So what to do? I decide to continue onto Westminster, dropping Jenna at Bedford Square and instructing her not to leave the college until she hears from me again – under no circumstances. I try telephoning my other daughter who is still asleep at home – but the networks are down. I drive on as herds of people are exiting tube stations as the whole system shuts down. I see a bus driver receiving a call – stopping the bus – and emptying out the passengers.

The roads are pretty empty. Buses now are mostly empty and the pavements are thronging with people. Outside shops with TVs are small congregations of people trying to find out what is going on.

As this is the first time I had brought the car in – I am not sure of the procedure as I drive in the gates of the Palace of Westminster. First you stop at a barrier where two security guards check the car for bombs very thoroughly. Embarrassed by not knowing how to open my bonnet when required to do so. Turns out there’s a little handle on floor of car by right foot.

On to various other security bits and pieces and then down into a huge car park – which I didn’t even know existed.

Rush up to office to try to use landlines to contact younger daughter and put TV on to see what is happening. I get through to my new caseworker who is still working in my house as constituency office not ready yet – and ask him to go wake Cady and tell her there has been a major terrorist attack on London and that I will phone on the house line in 5 minutes – which I do. I forbid her to go on the bus – and say if she wants to go into school for the last day of term (which it is – so all fun and no work – thus the keenness!) she will have to walk or get a lift. She begs me to come home as is worried that Westminster is key target. I tell her not to worry.

TV now reporting it as terrorist attack on London although number and timing of different incidents not clear. Pager goes off to tell me that the Home Secretary will come to the chamber at 12.15pm to make a statement. Impossible to get on with any real work.

The emergency plans appear to have swept faultlessly into operation – with all emergency services and transport staff doing an incredible job which I have no doubt saved lives and kept what actually was an eerie calm in the City.

I go into the chamber about 15 minutes before the statement – and it is business questions to the Leader of the House. As we reach the appointed hour – it is clear that Charles Clarke is not yet ready and we get whispers to keep questions going. I think of one and start standing up to get called – just an obliging person willing to help. However after about another 15 minutes where many of the questions are clearly becoming pretty unfocused – Mr Speaker decides to suspend the House until 12.50pm – so we all leave.

When I come back into the chamber it fills suddenly and the Speaker takes his seat. Charles Clarke comes to the Despatch Box and makes a truly statesmanlike announcement sticking only to facts. He gives our sympathy to the relatives of those who have died and support to those injured along with friends and family. No politics at all.

David Davis and Ming Campbell make equally strong speeches praising the emergency services and condemning speculation. The House pulls together in the way it does best in times of crisis.

I had had to cancel a radio interview that morning – but the Beeb reschedules for 2.30pm and I walk over to Millbank to the BBC studios. It is strange outside on the streets. The sun is shining and there are, albeit in hugely reduced numbers, tourists still around the Palace – but the roads are virtually empty.

I am being interviewed by Mark Darcy for the Friday “Today in Parliament” program about my on-line campaigning. I really enjoy the interview as it is so removed from everything else going on around me. Except that in another studio, Brian Paddick from the Met Police is fronting media interviews on the attack.

Back to Parliament and start to think about getting home. I ring eldest daughter to say will pick up at 4pm and to be outside her building. I give a colleague a lift too and as I leave the Westminster Village the roads are still strangely empty – and there is not a bus to be seen. But the pavements are absolutely thronging with people setting off early for the long march home. It’s a different world out there today.

Parliament debates identity cards

Posted on by

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.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Posted on by

Big day – as ‘my’ Bill (the Violent Crime Reduction Bill) is getting its second reading today. I won’t have to lead on the floor of the Commons as our Shadow Home Secretary, Mark Oaten, will do that. But I will have to speak and get a grip on the debate so that when I lead for the Lib Dems as the bill goes through its committee stage I will know what I am doing and where the debate is.

(If you’re wondering what second readings and committee stages are, there’s an explanation of how laws pass through Parliament at www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/legislation.html).

But first I have lunch with the Evening Standard lobby correspondent. He seems really OK. Have worked with lots of journalists from the ES and they have all been great – so far.

Then (barring quick press conference on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill) off to the chamber for the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Basically this bill tries to address the twin rising problems of alcohol and weapons. In a typically Labour way – some of it is right, but some of it is gesture ‘tough on crime’ politics.

For example – there is a proposal to stiffen the laws around the manufacture, sale and carrying of imitation firearms. I totally agree with the general intent of this. However – the bit on carrying states that the sentence will be raised from 6 months to 12 months. So I make an intervention whilst Charles Clarke (Home Secretary) is introducing the proposals to ask why a 6 month stiffening? What work has been done to estimate the reduction in carrying that that particular length of sentence will deliver?

Basically – it’s all speculative says Charles. Hmm – not an impressive way to make laws! (You can read the exchange in Hansard).

OK – so what would I have done to establish this before guestimating an addition to the sentence? I would have first established how many people had been done for carrying and what sentences they had (in fact I have a Parliamentary Question down on this). I would have gone back to them to survey whether they had any idea of what sentence was on the books, how much of deterrent it was, etc.

Anyway – the main area of disaster in these proposals is the plan for Alcohol Disorder Zones. If there is a lot of drunken, abusive and criminal behaviour in a particular location, the Local Authority and the Police will have the power to create an area where all those inside deemed to have alcohol as their main trade (a minefield in itself) will have eight weeks in which to produce an action plan and improve. But if they don’t – a levy will be imposed to pay for extra policing.

Fine in principle – polluter pays. Love it. But – good landlords will be treated same as bad (and probably move to a better area). The area will get a name as a ‘no go’ area – and people (consumers) will stop going there. Property values will plummet. And so on.

So – sounds a good idea at first – but not thought through. But as I say – the thrust of the Bill to get a grip on the British malaise of drinking yourself to oblivion on a Friday night is right. But as ever with Labour – there is no other side to the equation: examining why people drink themselves stupid, why it is a status symbol to carry a knife or a gun – and so on.

When the great reforming legislation on drink driving and wearing a seatbelt came into being – the Government put immense resource behind the message it was sending out about irresponsible behaviour. The resource was both in enforcement of the legislation yet also the huge educational and advertising campaigns that accompanied the change in the law. Labour is still shallow in its intent and will. Right message – lack of real depth to deliver change!

And I said so in my speech!