Tag Archives: tony blair

Terror Bill

Posted on by

On Thursday I was absolutely determined to get called in the Third Reading Debate on the Terror Bill as I wanted very much to get what my consultation with local Muslims had delivered onto the record.

The Chamber was relatively and eerily empty by comparison with the high drama of Wednesday’s votes – and so I got my chance after about the first four hours of bobbing up and down at the end of every speech.

I made two basic points: the first was to relate back the results of the consultation. The Prime Minister at PMQs (Prime Minster’s Question Time) had asserted that Muslims did not want to be associated with being against this Bill – and the inference was that everything with them was therefore hunky-dory. Well – it clearly wasn’t so simple and I read out the Secretary of the Mosque’s email to me as it makes moving reading.

There was no division at the end of the debate. Basically – the Government’s defeat yesterday means that the outstanding issues over ‘glorification’ and the definition of ‘terrorism’ will have to be sorted in the Lords. Now the aftermath of the Government defeat is the running news story. From what I can make out listening to John Reid – it was Parliament that got it wrong; Tony Blair is right. That statement appalled me. The democratic duty of Parliament and the will of Parliament were clear.

In the evening I had invited, with the help of Merel Ece, key members of the Turkish, Turkish Kurdish and Turkish Cypriot communities in to discuss informally with me the key issues for their communities. Overwhelmingly – it is education. Of course there is concern about Cyprus, minority rights in Turkey and autonomy of some sort for the Kurds – but it is here in this country that the main thrust of their problems lie. The attainment record in our schools is extraordinarily low – and relatively little seems to be being done, although some good projects are happening (at least one here in Haringey) but there is no coordination of best practise. There is clearly also a problem with the Home Office in terms of visas for students. The other issue that stood out was the lack of recognition for the Alevi – a faith and a culture but not a race.

So now I feel I have put faces to names and issues and it was a really interesting couple of hours. Simon Hughes MP also popped in to give a little troll through Liberal Democracy and our position on the international issues – which was really appreciated.

Government defeated over detention without trial for 90 days

Posted on by

It was weird! Having been at the meeting with Charles Clarke on Monday – to then see how the changes from what he said to me at our meeting in the morning (willingness to compromise), rolled through the day and evening into 90 days or be damned!

I guess Tony B must have been up to his old ‘trust me I’m Tony’ – and I know what’s best and I am going to over-rule my Home Secretary. Brinkmanship and bravura – but Tony doesn’t have the majority he had before the election.

Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday were excruciating I thought. Clarke hung out to dry by the Prime Minister’s determination to ‘do what’s right’. As if we who stood up against the sabre rattling do not believe we are right. And how much harder is it to stand up in the face of fears of terrorist attack to protect, within reason, our civil liberties and rights. I took huge exception to Blair calling any who opposed his view ‘woefully complacent.’ We are not. In fact, I have no doubt that terrorists will try and are trying to strike again. But it is not the 90 days that will stop them or disrupt them. And how dare Blair use such bullying and sleazy tactics to try and do his usual steamroller. He even descended into trying to say that if there was another terrorist attack and he didn’t have his 90 days – all who stood against him would be to blame. Shameful!

And he also said that the Muslim community – the community most vulnerable to the sharp end of these new laws – were perfectly happy with his proposals. Well I asked the Secretary of the Wightman Road Mosque (which is just across the border in Tottenham but which serves both Hornsey & Wood Green and Tottenham) as to their views on the legislation. Charles Clarke had challenged us to do on the floor of the Commons in the Committee Stage of the debate last week. I put a few sample views here:

From the Secretary of the Wightman Mosque and London Islamic Cultural Society:

Dear Lynne
Eid greetings to you and all your colleagues from London Islamic Cultural Society.

I hope that you are keeping well and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the Anti Terror Bill currently being debated.

Having discussed with quite a few members the general feeling/concern is:

we do not agree with increasing the detention period from 14 to 90 days

there is concern about methods used to interrogate suspects – many have been released without charge and are suffering mental health problems following their detention – these are innocent individuals. Even serial murders have rights!

we [UK] have been subjected to terrorism before where areas of the UK were bombed including MPs but at no time did the government find it necessary to bring in such radical laws – why?

The Muslim community feel very vulnerable the general feeling is that these attempts by Tony Blair is to undermine our civil rights and that this type of law is condemned by UK & US as being ‘undemocratic’, ‘illegal’, ‘inhumane’ when adopted by other countries – but strangely when used by themselves it is ‘protecting the country’ It reeks of double standards.

Lynne – please understand that we in no way agree with misguided individuals compromising our safety. No! This is totally unislamic, but you have to understand that our Muslim community are scared and concerned for the safety of their children and families.

These laws prohibit even the law abiding families knowing what is happening to their loved ones. Our worry is that the unfairness of the actions will give rise to more and more people feeling trapped, alienated, seeing the bias, feeling discriminated against and we in community groups being less able to ‘include’ or ‘reach’ these individuals.

I also asked a local Imam to consult with the congregation:

I spoke to the Mosque congregation today and a few times before and this is the conclusion of their views:

I couldn’t find a single person in the congregation who supported the proposed legislation. They felt this legislation fundamentally violated their human rights and cut through the civil liberties.

They felt directly under threat and feared that they would be the target and victims of this legislation.

They felt if some one is held for 90 days, it amounts to a sentence and if the person is then not charged and released, the consequence of this detention would have been a total destruction of career, business, family, persons and social life.

They felt the government is going down the same route as France where some legislation have alienated young people further and the result is now visible in the streets of France in the forms of riots.

They felt that this kind of legislations would breed more terrorism and not counter it.

They felt that the government is sleep walking into clash of cultures and civilization.

They felt aggrieved and let down by the government

The younger members were angry and the older members where apprehensive.

So I don’t know who Tony Blair has been talking to – but that is what our local Muslim community gives as a snapshot view.

And as to the rest of my postbag on this issue – 50/50 for and against.

The rest of the debate was high drama indeed. I had to go and do Simon Mayo’s live programme on the debate. The Labour MP on the show was citing Andy Hayman (who provided a letter of the ‘evidence’ of need of 90 days) using the ricin incident as evidence of the need to have such an extended period of detention. Well he shouldn’t have started with me as the ricin incident happened here in Hornsey & Wood Green and was a mess in my view from start to finish. The substance wasn’t ricin. The people charged were acquitted. And as for the guy who skipped to Algeria – he was actually released after only two days – so even under current laws, the police could have kept him in detention for much longer if they’d wanted to. And he could have anyway been charged with acts preparatory to terrorism.

So – if that is the basis on which the Met is arguing to take away our rights – then it is unacceptable basis for evidence. And – quite frankly – the police do not always get it right. They didn’t when they shot Jean Charles de Menezes, they didn’t with the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and even Sir Ian Blair got his information wrong after the shooting and we have yet to hear from the Independent Police Complaints Commission as to the findings from their investigation – an investigation which the Met tried to block.

As we went into the vote on extending detention without trial to 90 days we all thought it was too close to call. The silence fell as the tellers stood before the Speaker – and eerily into that silence was announced the first defeat of the Labour government since ’97. A strangely muted cheer from the winners. And then straight into the vote on 28 days – which was won.

So – wounded – the Government retired to sort out what line it would take on the momentous defeat. And a real moment for democracy when all sides of the House came together to stand up for what we all believe was right as the balance between our freedoms and our safety.

It’s not over. It goes to the Lords where the Lib Dems are determined to put safety locks on the numbers that can be held beyond 14 to the 28 days as well as more judicial intervention. For us 28 was a compromise – and we still need more safeguards in place. We will see how it fares in the Lords – and of course – there are still unacceptable parts of the Bill around ‘glorification’ and the definition of ‘terrorism’.

Blunkett's demise

Posted on by

As I drove in today listening to the radio, the news started to roll across one of the two big stories of the day – from Blunkett may resign – to – hasn’t turned up to Pensions Select Committee – to – coming out of Downing Street – to had handed in his resignation.

I don’t think there was any way out for him really. I was talking to Menzies Campbell (Lib Dem deputy leader) later in the day who was saying (in jest) that it was my fault for asking the question and that other Ministers should be afraid.

I asked him whether he thought it would have made any difference if Blunkett had chosen, instead of attacking me for daring to ask a question about whether his judgement being so publicly called into question meant he was still able to do his job as a minister, to instead say something like ‘the Honourable Lady is right. I have had so many personal disasters in recent times that I have done things, albeit unwittingly, that have resulted in my making errors of judgement – but I apologise to the House and am putting all in order as the job I have to do is the single most important thing on this nation’s agenda and on mine …’ Menzies said he thought that contrition went a long way in the House. But contrition so isn’t David Blunkett. His position worsened between Monday’s questions and today – and the inevitable conclusion was reached.

It is extraordinary that a man so brilliant in a work situation (whether you love or hate his policies) could be so floored by personal relationships – but that’s just the truth of how life is.

Prime Minister’s Questions followed quickly on – and Tony B decided on a strange defence of his actions vis a vis Blunkett. He said that Blunkett had broken the Ministerial Code – but that he shouldn’t go. He said that it wasn’t a sacking offence. This shouldn’t be anything to do with what Blair or any other Prime Minister thinks is ‘serious’ or not. So I would suggest that the decision is taken out of the Prime Minister’s hands – and that there is an independent panel to decide about such matters. You simply cannot have a Ministerial Code that is broken and have a Prime Minister saying basically – well it doesn’t matter.

On the run and wounded Blair looked weak as he wanly defended himself against accusations of being a lame duck as power and influence and friends in the Cabinet drained away. The colour drained away too from his face. Nasty business today.

And it got worse as we spent the rest of the day debating the Terror Bill where the Government was forced into retreat on its proposals for extending detention for 90 days without charge. Having come within one vote of defeat on an earlier amendment – Charles Clarke (who is no fool) backed down and conceded talks –  thus avoiding a vote against the proposals. We’ll see what happens. Only other thing to report is dashing out into pouring rain to meet with the lobby for Trade Justice. There was a Hornsey & Wood Green delegation and I am so glad I was able to get out and talk to them (the votes and getting out the chamber was not easy).

Local services for local people

Posted on by

Interesting meeting with the committee running the St James Pre-School playgroup. Squeezed by Government and local council so that they can barely function. Too complicated to go into here – but long and short is that funding follows the child. The funding for those on Income Support falls short of the real cost of paying for the staff . So in order to fund the differential gap – the other parents have to make voluntary contributions – and most are willing. This school has only four on income support – so the other parents fund their own extra costs and sub these four – but in playgroups where there are overwhelmingly kids from families on income support – the whole thing is getting completely untenable. I suspect that is the Government’s intention – to squeeze until they are all forced to close or become private nurseries. They can then force everyone into schools or childrens’ centres and never mind the loss of the wonderful local groups in the community. I really hate this government at times.

Then I dash to see a man who is unhappy about parking. I know – there are lots out there. He lives on a main road and bus route and is cross that Haringey Council have brought in pavement parking outside his house to stop buses getting stuck in Middle Lane and speed their progress. He doesn’t like the noise the buses make now they go faster and believes that the Council have lied on the their consultation document where they say that the pavement parking and double yellows on corners will improve things for residents. Well – I’m not the one to defend the Labour Council and they do lie. However, speeding up buses is necessary so that more people use public transport. But as a car and motorcycle enthusiast – he was not truly sold the argument that we need more and better public transport and the logic was lost on him. However, he is right about needing signs for school children, and better design of the pavement parking and am happy to take that up.

Then on to the TreeHouse Trust. This is an organisation formed out of desperation by parents of autistic children because the state offered care was hard to get and not necessarily the best. So some years on, TreeHouse have developed into a really fantastic group who have now built (temporarily in temporary buildings) a school for autistic children in Muswell Hill. It is fabulous. The care, the education, the pastoral care, the staff, the atmosphere, the ambition for the children was absolutely fantastic.

My fury is reserved for the trouble they have getting local councils (and they take from across the whole of London) to fund a child to be placed there. Yes – they are a bit more expensive than council places in special schools – but the care is so much geared to that very special condition.

Currently, I have been trying to get Haringey to fund a local child place there – but they refuse. The family are going to go into debt to send their son there.

Flew in and out of my youngest daughter’s school for a meeting about forthcoming art trip to Berlin and then met a delegation on behalf of Greek Cypriots.

And of course – today was Tony’s revenge. He always caps Brown. On the Monday you think Brown has got it in the bag – and damn it – by Tuesday lunchtime Tony has the conference eating out of his hand again. Gordon must be spitting as I reckon that was quite a clear indication that Blair is not hanging up his hat in the near future…

Haringey's 40th birthday

Posted on by

Lively debate at our Parliamentary Party meeting. Much desire from everyone to ensure the party moves further ahead in this Parliament and lots to discuss about how best to do it.

In the evening dash back to join the celebrations at Ally Pally for 40 years of Haringey Borough. A whole line of ex-councillors from days of yore told their tale after the dinner – very interesting historically.

Undercurrents of tension around the room – seems to me there is much blaming going on by Labour of everyone but themselves for the loss of the parliamentary seat. I guess they can see the writing on the wall for the council elections next year. But, just like Tony, their ‘listening and learning’ from the results of the election and the message that Haringey residents sent to them doesn’t appear to have gone in at all. Jolly good I say. Let them blame me, blame council officers, blame Blair, blame anyone but themselves – that way they will be too busy fighting each other and moaning to stop the Lib Dems taking control of the council next May.

The Queen's Speech

Posted on by

State opening of Parliament. I arrive about 10.15am and having been instructed fill out a prayer card and pop it in one of only two remaining seats. This is the parliamentary equivalent of towels on deckchairs – and so long as you report for prayers, you can keep your seat for the rest of the day.

Black Rod comes and does his thing – calling the Commons to go across to the Lords. We all troop through. As I am vertically challenged and standing at the back – my view is just of the top of the Queen’s crown and occasionally glimpsing her face.

Back to the Commons. We adjourn and then reconvene at 2.30pm for the opening debate on the Queen’s Speech.

This debate is traditionally opened (what isn’t traditional here) by an old backbencher and a new backbencher. They’re meant to give funny speeches. They were ok – but not that funny … then Michael Howard had his go – followed by Tony ‘I’ve listened and learned’ Blair.

Clearly he hadn’t as the 45 bills were the same program he waned last time – so the old game is back in town and it’s ID cards, removal of civil liberties and so on.

It is all pretty interesting for me at this stage. All the characters who have peppered my TV screen for years are live in the room. And the proceedings are all novel and certainly antiquated. I would love to think it could change – but the boys school is in evidence and better people than I have tried in the past – so the key will be learning how to use Parliament to deliver the things I need to fight for in Hornsey & Wood Green.