Yesterday's business started with tributes from all five benches following the death of Lord Kingsland on Sunday, a man clearly highly rated on all sides, even when they were in opposition to the thrust of his argument. Described as a lawyer's lawyer and a parliamentarian's parliamentarian, one senior Peer described him as one of the intellectual powerhouses of the Conservative benches.
The Government then went on to announce its intention to ratify the Dublin Convention on Cluster Munitions, whereby the United Kingdom will cease to hold stocks. Currently, in anticipation of ratification, their use has been abandoned and they are currently stored pending destruction.
The Coroners and Justice Bill reached Day 7 of its Committee Stage, with Lord Henley stepping in at very short notice to fill Lord Kingsland's shoes on the front bench. The opposition parties continue to chip away at some of the more troubling aspects of the bill, with the Government agreeing to look further at elements relating to witness anonymity. The proposal to crate an Independent Commissioner for Terrorist Suspects was passed by 145 votes to 103, another defeat for the Government, and we will see whether they attempt to overturn that in the Commons in due course. Again, the Liberal Democrats turned out in force to contribute to that defeat.
There followed a series of Regulations relating to the introduction, at some future point, of identity cards. Whilst these were passed, Baroness Hanham, supported by Baroness Miller from our benches, rose to move a motion regretting the decision of the Government to proceed with them, as a test of the House's opinion on identity cards. Again, the Liberal Democrat votes probed decisive, as the vote was won with 157 voting content, just 98 voting non content, an opposition victory by 59 votes.
Finally, and I make no apologies for covering this, a written question asked some time ago eventually received a formal answer. Lord McKenzie of Luton, answering Baroness Scott of Needham Market, confirmed that some, if not all, disabled councillors will be eligible for Access to Work support. Where councillors receive anything above reimbursement of travel, mileage and meal allowances, they may be eligible for Access to Work support, providing that they meet the other eligibility conditions.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Don't call the BNP fascists - publicise their policies instead
I'm not exactly a friend of the BNP - I wouldn't be allowed to join, for example. However, as I've noted in the past, simply calling them fascists and throwing one's hands up in disgust does nothing to address the question of why people vote for them.
Some of their support certainly comes from racists, but I'm yet to be convinced that all, or even most, of their supporters think of themselves as racists. Many of their voters feel neglected and frustrated and the BNP appeal to that sense where they work.
On the other hand, they stand for some quite eye-wateringly crazy policies. How about this excerpt from their 2005 manifesto;
"The compulsory National Service system discussed elsewhere in this Manifesto would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training in the army. This would include full training with the citizens’ assault rifle. Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote."
So, let's see. They believe that we should all have the right to bear arms. Not just any arms, but an assault rifle. That's going to make my morning commute a mite more interesting. On the other hand, perhaps people will move right down inside the carriage if I encourage them with my assault rifle.
They also believe in mandatory basic army training. Alright, a bit over the top but there are many who suspect that it would instil discipline. Admittedly, most people think of national service, which wasn't really intended to produce soldiers, and might demur at the idea of taking young thugs off the street, potentially converting them into highly trained, armed killers and then putting them back onto the streets - with their assault rifle, don't forget.
They clearly believe in changing the role of the army - soldiers will need to carry out that training - and in spending money on housing those doing their national service, feeding them, clothing them, arming them etc. Given the disposition of our armed forces, either that means withdrawing them from places they're in, or increasing their numbers. Either choice has implications, in terms of cost, or in terms of our place at the top table of international affairs.
The linkage of mandatory army training with the right to vote means, potentially, the exclusion of the disabled from the franchise. Can the blind complete the training, or are adjustments going to be made to allow them to do so? How about those on dialysis, or with injuries sustained on the sports field or in day to day life? Are they to be dienfranchised by the state for no fault of their own?
However, let's say that I've successfully completed my army training. Will allowing me to carry an assault rifle cause the police to be armed too? If so, they'll need a training budget, they'll need the weapons, and they'll need to change their strategy. After all, if everyone is potentially armed, every incident requires an armed response.
As an example of a country where the right to bear arms is strongly defended, the American model of gun ownership is, in urban areas, one of handguns, and a significant proportion of deaths are accidental. In Canada, on the other hand, gun ownership is far more likely to mean a hunting rifle, and deaths caused by firearms are far lower. An assault weapon is unlikely to be used to hunt - it's designed to kill - and one has fears for the carnage that might follow. It would be likely to assumed that an intruder is armed, and one would feel the need for an armed response. All very well if they are an intruder perhaps...
So, all in all, a policy which might not be so popular when you look at the detail. The BNP want your thuggish neighbour to be armed with something that will, if used, kill you. They want the countryside to be covered with army training facilities. They want the police to be armed. They want to take the vote away from the disabled. They want to miltarise the nation.
Is that enough for the next Focus leaflet?
Some of their support certainly comes from racists, but I'm yet to be convinced that all, or even most, of their supporters think of themselves as racists. Many of their voters feel neglected and frustrated and the BNP appeal to that sense where they work.
On the other hand, they stand for some quite eye-wateringly crazy policies. How about this excerpt from their 2005 manifesto;
"The compulsory National Service system discussed elsewhere in this Manifesto would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training in the army. This would include full training with the citizens’ assault rifle. Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote."
So, let's see. They believe that we should all have the right to bear arms. Not just any arms, but an assault rifle. That's going to make my morning commute a mite more interesting. On the other hand, perhaps people will move right down inside the carriage if I encourage them with my assault rifle.
They also believe in mandatory basic army training. Alright, a bit over the top but there are many who suspect that it would instil discipline. Admittedly, most people think of national service, which wasn't really intended to produce soldiers, and might demur at the idea of taking young thugs off the street, potentially converting them into highly trained, armed killers and then putting them back onto the streets - with their assault rifle, don't forget.
They clearly believe in changing the role of the army - soldiers will need to carry out that training - and in spending money on housing those doing their national service, feeding them, clothing them, arming them etc. Given the disposition of our armed forces, either that means withdrawing them from places they're in, or increasing their numbers. Either choice has implications, in terms of cost, or in terms of our place at the top table of international affairs.
The linkage of mandatory army training with the right to vote means, potentially, the exclusion of the disabled from the franchise. Can the blind complete the training, or are adjustments going to be made to allow them to do so? How about those on dialysis, or with injuries sustained on the sports field or in day to day life? Are they to be dienfranchised by the state for no fault of their own?
However, let's say that I've successfully completed my army training. Will allowing me to carry an assault rifle cause the police to be armed too? If so, they'll need a training budget, they'll need the weapons, and they'll need to change their strategy. After all, if everyone is potentially armed, every incident requires an armed response.
As an example of a country where the right to bear arms is strongly defended, the American model of gun ownership is, in urban areas, one of handguns, and a significant proportion of deaths are accidental. In Canada, on the other hand, gun ownership is far more likely to mean a hunting rifle, and deaths caused by firearms are far lower. An assault weapon is unlikely to be used to hunt - it's designed to kill - and one has fears for the carnage that might follow. It would be likely to assumed that an intruder is armed, and one would feel the need for an armed response. All very well if they are an intruder perhaps...
So, all in all, a policy which might not be so popular when you look at the detail. The BNP want your thuggish neighbour to be armed with something that will, if used, kill you. They want the countryside to be covered with army training facilities. They want the police to be armed. They want to take the vote away from the disabled. They want to miltarise the nation.
Is that enough for the next Focus leaflet?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Safe in my old cocoon
Once upon a time, when I was young, I became active in the Young Liberals - a radical bunch indeed, if not necessarily that effective. As I rose effortlessly through the ranks - it wasn't that I was that good, it was just that I was consistently the only person available to fill vacancies, it dawned on me that a radical gesture was required.
For a middle-class surburban kid like myself, the idea of doing something that involved risk, pain or demonstration was ruled out instantly. So I joined the National Liberal Club, immediately marking me out from the knit your own muesli, sandal wearing tree huggers who were my contemporaries - lovely people though they were.
I loved the Club, wood-panelled walls, leather armchairs, a terrace overlooking the Thames, and conveniently located for Parliament, the South Bank and the West End. I was single, carefree and with the sort of disposable income that made one painfully content with one's lot. It was a great place to host our international visitors too, as a gentlemens' club was always likely to impress.
Unfortunately, I had to give it up when I first married - the cost was a bit of a luxury all of a sudden. However, as my finances improved, I dusted off my right to rejoin and renewed my membership. That was 1996 and for a number of years after that, I popped in from time to time, grabbing a drink at the bar, making conversation with the barman, an institution called Benito, whose attitude to those wanting refreshment was famous, and occasionally treating myself to dinner.
I even availed myself of my reciprocal rights - Los Angeles, Mumbai, Dunedin, Bangkok, all of them allowed me the opportunity to seek sanctuary from the hubbub of urban life.
In recent years, however, my opportunities to visit began to become fewer, and I was beginning to wonder whether or not it was time to give it up. It isn't cheap and, whilst a gentleman is allowed the odd indulgence, the money could be better spent.
Until now, that is. Now that my domestic arrangements have changed, and a pied-de-terre in inner London is part of them, I actually have an excuse to drop in more often, especially during the Parliamentary recess, when Ros is in Suffolk and I am, during the week at least, in London.
So, I get to entertain a bit. If you're in London midweek, and you fancy a drink, and a look around one of London's more secluded corners, drop me an e-mail. Give me some notice, and if I'm free, and you're properly attired (jacket and tie for men, no jeans, proper shoes please), we'll see what can be done. And don't forget, Lord Bonkers is known to frequent the place when in town, or so I'm told - I've never laid eyes on the old buffer when I've been here, to be honest...
For a middle-class surburban kid like myself, the idea of doing something that involved risk, pain or demonstration was ruled out instantly. So I joined the National Liberal Club, immediately marking me out from the knit your own muesli, sandal wearing tree huggers who were my contemporaries - lovely people though they were.
I loved the Club, wood-panelled walls, leather armchairs, a terrace overlooking the Thames, and conveniently located for Parliament, the South Bank and the West End. I was single, carefree and with the sort of disposable income that made one painfully content with one's lot. It was a great place to host our international visitors too, as a gentlemens' club was always likely to impress.
Unfortunately, I had to give it up when I first married - the cost was a bit of a luxury all of a sudden. However, as my finances improved, I dusted off my right to rejoin and renewed my membership. That was 1996 and for a number of years after that, I popped in from time to time, grabbing a drink at the bar, making conversation with the barman, an institution called Benito, whose attitude to those wanting refreshment was famous, and occasionally treating myself to dinner.
I even availed myself of my reciprocal rights - Los Angeles, Mumbai, Dunedin, Bangkok, all of them allowed me the opportunity to seek sanctuary from the hubbub of urban life.
In recent years, however, my opportunities to visit began to become fewer, and I was beginning to wonder whether or not it was time to give it up. It isn't cheap and, whilst a gentleman is allowed the odd indulgence, the money could be better spent.
Until now, that is. Now that my domestic arrangements have changed, and a pied-de-terre in inner London is part of them, I actually have an excuse to drop in more often, especially during the Parliamentary recess, when Ros is in Suffolk and I am, during the week at least, in London.
So, I get to entertain a bit. If you're in London midweek, and you fancy a drink, and a look around one of London's more secluded corners, drop me an e-mail. Give me some notice, and if I'm free, and you're properly attired (jacket and tie for men, no jeans, proper shoes please), we'll see what can be done. And don't forget, Lord Bonkers is known to frequent the place when in town, or so I'm told - I've never laid eyes on the old buffer when I've been here, to be honest...
This week in the Lords - 13-17 July (part 1)
It's the sharp end of the Parliamentary session, as a number of Bills reach the point of potential no return, and the Government hasten to get as much of their poorly drafted legislation through whilst the sun shines. One complication is the unexpected death yesterday of Lord Kingsland, the Conservative frontbencher for constitutional and legal affairs which, given the nature of the week's business, is likely to cause some reshuffling, if only on the Conservative benches. Liberal Bureaucracy sends its condolences to his family.
So, what do we have to look forward to?
Monday
From the Liberal Democrat benches, oral questions on US/UK negotiations on the acceptance of detainees (Lord Wallace of Saltaire) and on the issue of refugees arising from conflicts and climate change (Baroness Tonge).
Day 7 of the Committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, where our plucky team will doubtless continue to resist attempts to take more of our rights away. Lord Thomas of Gresford will be seeking to amend the Bill to tighten up issues relating to witness anonymity (amendments 185ZA to 185ZE inclusive) and to reject Clauses 86, 87, 93 and 98. Meanwhile, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer will be moving amendments 186A-C, which seek to prevent the imposition of police bail for minor offences.
The most interesting, and most likely to be successful, amendment is one that has the support of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches, amendment 187, which creates an Independent Commissioner for Terrorist Suspects. Paragraph 2 of the proposed new clause reads;
"The principal function of the Commissioner shall be to monitor the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects held under section 41 of and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) and in particular to give the judicial authority such independent assistance as it may require in deciding whether or not to extend the period of detention, and to perform such other related functions as the Secretary of State may determine."
Finally, there will be a Motion of Regret from Baroness Miller, opposing some new regulations in support of the introduction of identity cards. The Conservatives are likely to be supportive, although whether they can round up enough votes is another question.
Tuesday
From the Liberal Democrat benches, there will be oral questions on the prospects for a united Cyprus (Lord Watson of Richmond) and on university places (Baroness Sharp).
Then, it will be on to the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Liberal Democrats will be pushing to make specific the fact that the Bill only applies to the House of Commons, and to insert a proper system for investigating complaints. Meanwhile, Lord Jenkin of Roding will be attempting to insert multiple references to the 1689 Bill of Rights. I wonder if Conservatives opposed that piece of legislation at the time?...
So, what do we have to look forward to?
Monday
From the Liberal Democrat benches, oral questions on US/UK negotiations on the acceptance of detainees (Lord Wallace of Saltaire) and on the issue of refugees arising from conflicts and climate change (Baroness Tonge).
Day 7 of the Committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, where our plucky team will doubtless continue to resist attempts to take more of our rights away. Lord Thomas of Gresford will be seeking to amend the Bill to tighten up issues relating to witness anonymity (amendments 185ZA to 185ZE inclusive) and to reject Clauses 86, 87, 93 and 98. Meanwhile, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer will be moving amendments 186A-C, which seek to prevent the imposition of police bail for minor offences.
The most interesting, and most likely to be successful, amendment is one that has the support of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches, amendment 187, which creates an Independent Commissioner for Terrorist Suspects. Paragraph 2 of the proposed new clause reads;
"The principal function of the Commissioner shall be to monitor the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects held under section 41 of and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) and in particular to give the judicial authority such independent assistance as it may require in deciding whether or not to extend the period of detention, and to perform such other related functions as the Secretary of State may determine."
Finally, there will be a Motion of Regret from Baroness Miller, opposing some new regulations in support of the introduction of identity cards. The Conservatives are likely to be supportive, although whether they can round up enough votes is another question.
Tuesday
From the Liberal Democrat benches, there will be oral questions on the prospects for a united Cyprus (Lord Watson of Richmond) and on university places (Baroness Sharp).
Then, it will be on to the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Liberal Democrats will be pushing to make specific the fact that the Bill only applies to the House of Commons, and to insert a proper system for investigating complaints. Meanwhile, Lord Jenkin of Roding will be attempting to insert multiple references to the 1689 Bill of Rights. I wonder if Conservatives opposed that piece of legislation at the time?...
Curb your enthusiasm - 'yesterday' in the Lords (Friday, July 10th)
Firstly, apologies for falling behind. You know how it is, it takes time to read the papers, something else crops up, blah, blah, blah...
Anyway, last week saw one of those rare Fridays where the Lords remains in session, doubtless preventing Lord Redesdale from getting home to continue his excellent work in preserving the red squirrel by killing every grey squirrel within the borders of Northumberland. But I digress...
Business started with a statement from Baroness Royall, advising that additional time will be found to debate the Parliamentary Standards Bill, i.e. the bill that introduces the nanny state to Parliament. Whilst this was welcomed by the opposition front benches, Lord Shutt of Greetland, he of the effervescent tie collection and the very model of a Yorkshireman, called upon the noble Baroness to life her e-quill and notify Peers via the exciting new communication method involving electronics. This radical notion appears not to have crossed her mind previously, but she was keen to take up the selection. We'll see how successful it has been on Thursday...
The remainder of the day's business consisted of Second Readings of four Private Members' Bills, the last of which was that originally moved in the Commons by Willie Rennie, seeking greater regulation of driving instructors, in particular those accused, or found guilty, of serious offences. Willie has covered this far better than I could, but it was good to see that the Bill received wide approval across the House. Hopefully, it will be passed into law shortly.
With a final glowing endorsement from the Government spokesman, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the House adjourned in time for lunch, or an early train, depending upon ones taste or distance to be travelled...
Anyway, last week saw one of those rare Fridays where the Lords remains in session, doubtless preventing Lord Redesdale from getting home to continue his excellent work in preserving the red squirrel by killing every grey squirrel within the borders of Northumberland. But I digress...
Business started with a statement from Baroness Royall, advising that additional time will be found to debate the Parliamentary Standards Bill, i.e. the bill that introduces the nanny state to Parliament. Whilst this was welcomed by the opposition front benches, Lord Shutt of Greetland, he of the effervescent tie collection and the very model of a Yorkshireman, called upon the noble Baroness to life her e-quill and notify Peers via the exciting new communication method involving electronics. This radical notion appears not to have crossed her mind previously, but she was keen to take up the selection. We'll see how successful it has been on Thursday...
The remainder of the day's business consisted of Second Readings of four Private Members' Bills, the last of which was that originally moved in the Commons by Willie Rennie, seeking greater regulation of driving instructors, in particular those accused, or found guilty, of serious offences. Willie has covered this far better than I could, but it was good to see that the Bill received wide approval across the House. Hopefully, it will be passed into law shortly.
With a final glowing endorsement from the Government spokesman, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the House adjourned in time for lunch, or an early train, depending upon ones taste or distance to be travelled...
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The lights may be out in Creeting St Peter but the torch burns in Norwich North
A typical Sunday morning. Wake up at about 8, go downstairs, make tea. Drink tea, go downstairs again to make more tea. Turn on kettle, nothing happens. Turn off kettle, turn on kettle again. Still nothing. Hmmmm... try a few other electrical items. No, mone of them work either. I know, ring electricity company...
And that's when I found out that there was a high voltage cable fault, apparently affecting an area from Great Bricett in the west, through Needham Market and the southern end of Stowmarket, to Mickfield and Stonham Aspal in the east. Engineers were on the job though, and it was expected that power would be restored as soon as possible.
As it turned out, power wasn't likely to be restored until the early evening, but I had an appointment in Norwich with April Pond and the campaign team.
So, off up the A140, across the Waveney, stopping only for a very good lunch at the White Horse at Stoke Ash. At Norwich, a spot of light shopping before arriving at the HQ to meet activists before going on to do some canvassing with April Pond, John Pugh, Gerard from Liverpool and Chris Butler, April's minder.
There weren't an awful lot of people in, but those that were seemed fairly friendly, and pleasantly supportive. Alright, it may not be entirely representative, but I am reassured that we'll do alright.
Then home again, where the power was still to be restored, but at least the barbecue was working. And the power did come on eventually...
And that's when I found out that there was a high voltage cable fault, apparently affecting an area from Great Bricett in the west, through Needham Market and the southern end of Stowmarket, to Mickfield and Stonham Aspal in the east. Engineers were on the job though, and it was expected that power would be restored as soon as possible.
As it turned out, power wasn't likely to be restored until the early evening, but I had an appointment in Norwich with April Pond and the campaign team.
So, off up the A140, across the Waveney, stopping only for a very good lunch at the White Horse at Stoke Ash. At Norwich, a spot of light shopping before arriving at the HQ to meet activists before going on to do some canvassing with April Pond, John Pugh, Gerard from Liverpool and Chris Butler, April's minder.
There weren't an awful lot of people in, but those that were seemed fairly friendly, and pleasantly supportive. Alright, it may not be entirely representative, but I am reassured that we'll do alright.
Then home again, where the power was still to be restored, but at least the barbecue was working. And the power did come on eventually...
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A half of two meetings
To London for two meetings, English Council wearing my Lib Dem hat, and a meeting of the council of 'Unlock Democracy' - I'm on the Management Board. Alright, they were due to run simultaneously, but they weren't far apart, and I reckoned that I could do part of both.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you what happened in the key business sessions of English Council, because I said that I wouldn't, but I'm sure that some other blogger will report back, although I don't think that any other bloggers attend, now I come to think about it. It was a bit more participatory than usual, with some vital decisions taken that will impact tremendously on our ability to fight and win elections in the future... but I digress.
English Council is an odd combination of grizzled veterans and comparatively starry-eyed novices to the English stage. Most of the latter group don't survive once they realise that they are there to be talked at in a series of talking head presentations. There is no training, no fringe, just a series of speeches and reports back. Occasionally, however, there is a big debate changing something fairly radically, generally at a meeting that you've had to miss for some reason...
At lunchtime, I left for Islington, where I arrived in time for a series of policy debates related to future activities of 'Unlock Democracy'. As an organisation, we aim to campaign for reforms that allow the maximum level of engagement and participation for individuals and communities. How we do that whilst dealing with the presence of extremist political parties is a tough challenge. We acknoweldge their existence yet, if we choose to engage with them, we alienate other groups, especially those whom the extremists would themselves exclude.
At election time, we traditionally seek to inform the public by holding public hustings meetings. Yet some extremist groups make that difficult by creating an atmosphere that is unsuited to proper open debate, making the aim of the exercise unachievable. There is clearly a conflict between our aim of inclusivity and our desire for open debate and dialogue.
And so, my work done, back to Suffolk and dinner with wife and cats...
And so, my work done, back to Suffolk and dinner with wife and cats...
That word 'mute' - what does it mean again?
I understand that one of the Liberal Democrat blogosphere's 'enfant terribles' has been stirring things up again. As someone of South Asian extraction, the idea of anyone in my family telling their wife how to vote is amusing to say the least. But then, the idea of a family matriarch was always rather more realistic than that of a patriarch... And naturally, I have stayed true to that stance, although my wife can't vote in Westminster elections anyway...
However, it's taken me rather a long time to catch up with this debate, and I blame Ryan Cullen for this. You see, the mute button is a wonderful thing and, to make it more likely that I remain nice (in line with my current quest), I use it to block out things that might annoy me and cause me to be un-nice.
Now if only I can get it to work on the mobile version of Lib Dem Blogs...
However, it's taken me rather a long time to catch up with this debate, and I blame Ryan Cullen for this. You see, the mute button is a wonderful thing and, to make it more likely that I remain nice (in line with my current quest), I use it to block out things that might annoy me and cause me to be un-nice.
Now if only I can get it to work on the mobile version of Lib Dem Blogs...
Friday, July 10, 2009
Yesterday in the Lords - in which Rennard of Wavertree is triumphant... eventually
Yesterday saw the Third Reading of the Political Parties and Elections Bill, which kicked off with a Government amendment increasing the number of Electoral Commissioners to be persons nominated by political parties to three.
Lord Rennard, something of an expert on elections, I'm told, noted how important it was that commissioners should have genuine hands-on experience of running winning campaigns, as well as the array of legislation relating to them. It was, as Lord Bach noted, a subject on which Lord Rennard had been consist for nearly a decade.
Debate then moved onto a series of amendments designed to address the concerns of Lord Marlesford, whose keen eye had spotted that the original draft of the Bill had allowed officials of the Electoral Commission to gain entrance to the premises of an individual or organisation to examine documents related to their income and expenditure without a warrant. Local Party Chairs and Treasurers will doubtless be relieved that their homes will remain their castles.
On the other hand, I quite fancied the idea of being an Officer of the Electoral Commission, armed with automatic weaponry, kicking down doors at four in the morning, shouting "Show me the books and records for the 100 Club!"...
Lord Rennard, something of an expert on elections, I'm told, noted how important it was that commissioners should have genuine hands-on experience of running winning campaigns, as well as the array of legislation relating to them. It was, as Lord Bach noted, a subject on which Lord Rennard had been consist for nearly a decade.
Debate then moved onto a series of amendments designed to address the concerns of Lord Marlesford, whose keen eye had spotted that the original draft of the Bill had allowed officials of the Electoral Commission to gain entrance to the premises of an individual or organisation to examine documents related to their income and expenditure without a warrant. Local Party Chairs and Treasurers will doubtless be relieved that their homes will remain their castles.
On the other hand, I quite fancied the idea of being an Officer of the Electoral Commission, armed with automatic weaponry, kicking down doors at four in the morning, shouting "Show me the books and records for the 100 Club!"...
Local Government Review for Suffolk - the shambles continues...
The third deadline for the report of the Boundary Commission into the structural review of local government in Suffolk was originally due on 31 December, then mid-February, and then 15 July. Money has been spent by the district and borough councils, as well as by the County Council, planning for what might be to come, and contesting the process thus far, with all the inefficiency and dislocation that comes with an uncertain future.
And today, another blow to good governance comes with Justice Foskett's ruling (CO/4722/2009 Forest Heath DC vs Electoral Commission Boundary Committee for England) published this morning, in which he states that "the Boundary Committee should have discussed with the Claimants any reservations it had about whether the concepts advanced met the Secretary of State’s criteria before publishing the Draft proposals in July 2008 and also in March this year.".
Naturally, the Electoral Commission will now retreat into a huddle to work out what they do next. And even more naturally, the seven district and borough councils and the county council will wonder what to do in the interim...
And today, another blow to good governance comes with Justice Foskett's ruling (CO/4722/2009 Forest Heath DC vs Electoral Commission Boundary Committee for England) published this morning, in which he states that "the Boundary Committee should have discussed with the Claimants any reservations it had about whether the concepts advanced met the Secretary of State’s criteria before publishing the Draft proposals in July 2008 and also in March this year.".
Naturally, the Electoral Commission will now retreat into a huddle to work out what they do next. And even more naturally, the seven district and borough councils and the county council will wonder what to do in the interim...
News International - how much did they know about bugging?
Whilst the Metropolitan Police declare open season for those wishing to bug and phonetap politicians and public figures, it is becoming apparent that, if senior figures at News International didn't know what was happening at the News of the World, they were inadvertently working hard to cover it up and to protect their journalists from prosecution.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer takes up the story...
Now I turn to the role of Parliament and this House. In 2008, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, under Clause 75, we debated whether there should be a prison sentence of two years for people, including journalists, who were caught unlawfully obtaining personal data. But we also debated whether there should be a special defence for journalism and, if so, what that defence should be.
During the passage of that Act, the legal manager of News International, Alastair Brett, e-mailed me and sought a meeting. News International was most concerned at the idea of the increased tariffs or diminished defences. Now we can see why. It put tremendous pressure on the Government to drop the idea of prison sentences for journalists being included in the Act. Was it actually the Prime Minister who instructed that that legislation be dropped?
At the end of the debate on that Act, the conclusion was that we would not include it in the Bill, but that it would be brought in by order if necessary. Will that order now be brought in urgently so that when those who have been organising these appalling systematic intrusions into people’s private lives have been on trial, they will get the punishment that they deserve, rather than a paltry fine? The fact that we did not pass this to go in the Bill seems a tremendous mistake now. That order needs to be brought in urgently.
When the News International chairman, Les Hinton, was giving evidence to the Select Committee, he said that the phone hacking was a one-off case. If the Guardian evidence is to be believed, there is a lot of disdain for Parliament, and an immense amount of illegal action has been going on, which should result in a criminal record for a large number of people.
I can completely understand why Members on the Conservative Front Bench do not want to mention Mr Coulson. Undoubtedly, they feel contaminated by their association with him. There is no doubt that some of this custom and practice developed on his watch. No one could seriously believe that it suddenly developed overnight after he had left. For the sake of their credibility on privacy issues and law and order, I hope the Conservatives will join me in calling, at least, for the order to be enacted. I hope the Minister will confirm tonight that it will be enacted, so that when an investigation takes place—as it should and I hope he will press the police on this matter—and, eventually, when this comes to trial, there will be a proper punishment.
I have to say that the implications are stark. It is surely impossible to believe that Alastair Brett didn't know that this was an issue directly impacting on News International employees. After all, the 2007 sentencing of Clive Goodman, the News of the World's royal editor, was a bit of a giveaway.
Worse still, when Gordon Taylor sued the News of the World later that year, his legal team served the Information Commissioner with a court order, asking for details of News of the World reporters engaged in hacking or any other breaches of data protection law. The dossier that came back listed 27 journalists. Is it imaginable that this was anything other than systemic illegality? Is it imaginable that senior executives at the News of the World, or at News International for that matter, didn't know? Or are financial controls so lax that you can file invoices for illegal acts without anyone questioning them?
Either Andy Coulson is an entirely honourable man, who took responsibility for illegal acts committed under his leadership, or he knew he was guilty and wanted to get out before the rest of the illegal acts were exposed. He would have known what Gordon Taylor's legal team were planning, after all.
So. Mr Cameron, will you ask him, or do we have to? And if we get the answer I fear we might, are you and your colleagues going to shut up about Damian McBride?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer takes up the story...
Now I turn to the role of Parliament and this House. In 2008, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, under Clause 75, we debated whether there should be a prison sentence of two years for people, including journalists, who were caught unlawfully obtaining personal data. But we also debated whether there should be a special defence for journalism and, if so, what that defence should be.
During the passage of that Act, the legal manager of News International, Alastair Brett, e-mailed me and sought a meeting. News International was most concerned at the idea of the increased tariffs or diminished defences. Now we can see why. It put tremendous pressure on the Government to drop the idea of prison sentences for journalists being included in the Act. Was it actually the Prime Minister who instructed that that legislation be dropped?
At the end of the debate on that Act, the conclusion was that we would not include it in the Bill, but that it would be brought in by order if necessary. Will that order now be brought in urgently so that when those who have been organising these appalling systematic intrusions into people’s private lives have been on trial, they will get the punishment that they deserve, rather than a paltry fine? The fact that we did not pass this to go in the Bill seems a tremendous mistake now. That order needs to be brought in urgently.
When the News International chairman, Les Hinton, was giving evidence to the Select Committee, he said that the phone hacking was a one-off case. If the Guardian evidence is to be believed, there is a lot of disdain for Parliament, and an immense amount of illegal action has been going on, which should result in a criminal record for a large number of people.
I can completely understand why Members on the Conservative Front Bench do not want to mention Mr Coulson. Undoubtedly, they feel contaminated by their association with him. There is no doubt that some of this custom and practice developed on his watch. No one could seriously believe that it suddenly developed overnight after he had left. For the sake of their credibility on privacy issues and law and order, I hope the Conservatives will join me in calling, at least, for the order to be enacted. I hope the Minister will confirm tonight that it will be enacted, so that when an investigation takes place—as it should and I hope he will press the police on this matter—and, eventually, when this comes to trial, there will be a proper punishment.
I have to say that the implications are stark. It is surely impossible to believe that Alastair Brett didn't know that this was an issue directly impacting on News International employees. After all, the 2007 sentencing of Clive Goodman, the News of the World's royal editor, was a bit of a giveaway.
Worse still, when Gordon Taylor sued the News of the World later that year, his legal team served the Information Commissioner with a court order, asking for details of News of the World reporters engaged in hacking or any other breaches of data protection law. The dossier that came back listed 27 journalists. Is it imaginable that this was anything other than systemic illegality? Is it imaginable that senior executives at the News of the World, or at News International for that matter, didn't know? Or are financial controls so lax that you can file invoices for illegal acts without anyone questioning them?
Either Andy Coulson is an entirely honourable man, who took responsibility for illegal acts committed under his leadership, or he knew he was guilty and wanted to get out before the rest of the illegal acts were exposed. He would have known what Gordon Taylor's legal team were planning, after all.
So. Mr Cameron, will you ask him, or do we have to? And if we get the answer I fear we might, are you and your colleagues going to shut up about Damian McBride?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Savaging turkeys that vote for Christmas - yesterday in the Lords
Slightly later than yesterday, but my e-quill is rather overburdened...
An answer to that ever-intiguing question, "How long is a Government commitment good for?", was gleaned by
Lord Brooke of Stoke Mandeville in a question regarding the planned relocation to Birmingham of the Export Licensing Unit of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
In response, Lord Davies of Oldham confirmed that the decision was taken following an efficiency review, which came as a bit of a surprise to Lord Brooke, given the 2006 commitment to co-locate the Unit with the Council in London. He then want to claim that the commitment had been honoured, but that any decision for 2009 and future years was outside of that agreement.
So, a commitment lasts for three years, or Birmingham is the nation's capital - which is it to be, Lord Davies?
However, the main debate was saved for the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Leader of the House, claimed that the Lords should pass the Bill because the Commons wanted it. Perhaps the Government wants it, but the Lords was not going to be bounced into giving its assent lightly. The Constitution Committee in the Lords had been scathing in their criticism of the sort of rushed, ill-considered legislation that is all too sadly common these days, and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, a former Conservative Leader of the Commons, was keen to signal his opposition.
He wasn't alone, as a torrent of opprobrium was unleashed upon a Bill which has shed clauses in the manner of a stripper in a hurry to get to a more lucrative gig elsewhere.
Whilst some Peers attacked the Bill for its undue haste and resultant inadequacy, others noted that it introduced differential treatment - fraudulent expense claims would lead to a maximum sentence of one year, yet the Fraud Act permits a ten year maximum for equivalent offences. It was all most unsatisfactory.
However, as Lord Shutt of Greetland noted, the Bill was the result of a hasty collaboration between Party leaders, hardly the cross-party consensus that Baroness Royall had claimed in vain. As he put it, the Commons wants this Bill, and it will probably get it.
That isn't to say that the Lords, unaffected as it is by the proposals, will come quietly...
An answer to that ever-intiguing question, "How long is a Government commitment good for?", was gleaned by
Lord Brooke of Stoke Mandeville in a question regarding the planned relocation to Birmingham of the Export Licensing Unit of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
In response, Lord Davies of Oldham confirmed that the decision was taken following an efficiency review, which came as a bit of a surprise to Lord Brooke, given the 2006 commitment to co-locate the Unit with the Council in London. He then want to claim that the commitment had been honoured, but that any decision for 2009 and future years was outside of that agreement.
So, a commitment lasts for three years, or Birmingham is the nation's capital - which is it to be, Lord Davies?
However, the main debate was saved for the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Leader of the House, claimed that the Lords should pass the Bill because the Commons wanted it. Perhaps the Government wants it, but the Lords was not going to be bounced into giving its assent lightly. The Constitution Committee in the Lords had been scathing in their criticism of the sort of rushed, ill-considered legislation that is all too sadly common these days, and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, a former Conservative Leader of the Commons, was keen to signal his opposition.
He wasn't alone, as a torrent of opprobrium was unleashed upon a Bill which has shed clauses in the manner of a stripper in a hurry to get to a more lucrative gig elsewhere.
Whilst some Peers attacked the Bill for its undue haste and resultant inadequacy, others noted that it introduced differential treatment - fraudulent expense claims would lead to a maximum sentence of one year, yet the Fraud Act permits a ten year maximum for equivalent offences. It was all most unsatisfactory.
However, as Lord Shutt of Greetland noted, the Bill was the result of a hasty collaboration between Party leaders, hardly the cross-party consensus that Baroness Royall had claimed in vain. As he put it, the Commons wants this Bill, and it will probably get it.
That isn't to say that the Lords, unaffected as it is by the proposals, will come quietly...
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The blog roll gets a little bit bigger...
I've had a bit of a falling out with Paul Walter of late, after a disagreement over how best to deal with the Rennard affair. Paul's initial response, attacking both Chris Rennard and the Federal Executive, drew a pointed response from me, even after he withdrew it from the record. Indeed, I used some rather unbureaucratic directness in summing up what I thought.However, we've tried to allow time to work its healing magic and perhaps it is time that I made a gesture towards reconciliation. So I'm adding 'Liberal Burblings' to my blog roll, as a peace offering and in the expectation that it will give stray readers from outside of the Liberal Democrat blogosphere yet further insight into what makes us tick.
Enjoy...
MP expenses - it ain't over until the fat lady self-assesses
HM Revenue & Customs has written to all MPs inviting them to talk to the Department about their expenses and any tax which they may be liable to pay.
Permanent Secretary for Tax Dave Hartnett also revealed some MPs made the mistake of not paying tax incurred after claiming back accountants' fees for personal tax advice.
Mr Hartnett was giving evidence to the Committee for Standards in Public Life, which has been asked by the government to look into the system of MPs' expenses.
Asked by the Committee whether most MPs had paid the correct amount of tax, Hartnett replied: "Some have got their tax affairs correct and some haven't. It is a mistake that gets made. They should all be paying tax." He added: "We have written to all MPs inviting them to talk to us if they want to talk to us. We have also picked up that there are a number that we will need to talk to as well."
His appearance before the Committee yesterday (7 July) is one of a number of hearings which the public has been invited to attend. The minutes are also a matter of public record.
Permanent Secretary for Tax Dave Hartnett also revealed some MPs made the mistake of not paying tax incurred after claiming back accountants' fees for personal tax advice.
Mr Hartnett was giving evidence to the Committee for Standards in Public Life, which has been asked by the government to look into the system of MPs' expenses.
Asked by the Committee whether most MPs had paid the correct amount of tax, Hartnett replied: "Some have got their tax affairs correct and some haven't. It is a mistake that gets made. They should all be paying tax." He added: "We have written to all MPs inviting them to talk to us if they want to talk to us. We have also picked up that there are a number that we will need to talk to as well."
His appearance before the Committee yesterday (7 July) is one of a number of hearings which the public has been invited to attend. The minutes are also a matter of public record.
Yesterday in the Lords: 7 July 2009
Welcome to a new, experimental feature, where I read Hansard so that you don't have to...
Yesterday's business started with the announcement of the death of Lord Blaker, a stalwart of the Conservative benches. Unfortunately, death was always going to be a spectre that haunted the day's events, with the main business of the day being the 5th day of the Committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
Amendment 173, in the name of Lord Falconer, sought to make it possible to accompany someone overseas for the purposes of them committing suicide, an issue which has been the subject of much debate recently.
The genuine concern that loved ones risk prosecution merely for helping someone to a location where they can carry out their settled wish to die with as much dignity as possible was the focus of the amendment, and Lord Falconer spoke movingly yet cautiously in addressing what are deeply held reservations on the part of opponents of the amendment.
It was clearly going to be a clash of the lawyers, and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, another former Lord Chancellor, was quick to raise the issue of the sanctity of life. He also raised the issue of moral coercion of vulnerable people, the fear being that the elderly, especially those with potentially large estates, would be pressurised into committing suicide so as to ensure the maximum inheritance.
The Lords also has a goodly number of doctors, most of whom were opposed to the amendment in line with the stated stance of the British Medical Association.
If I had to pick one intervention, I would probably choose that of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, whose health is sufficently poor that she would potentially benefit from the amendment, yet she is determinedly opposed to it as a member of an organisation called Not Dead Yet UK (they have T-shirts, she advised fellow Peers).
She spoke of the fear that those with terminal illnesses experience, noting that not a single organisation of or for terminally ill people supported the amendment. The fear is that if the State were to sanction any person to assist another in the ending of that person's life, it might switch the mindset of doctors and those who would help the terminally ill to thinking that assisted suicide was in their best interests (the terminally ill, that is).
After a lengthy debate, the amendment fell by 194 votes to 141, with the Liberal Democrat Peers splitting 26 to 21 in favour on a free vote.
The early stages of the debate took place during a thunderstorm, causing Lord Mackay of Clashfern to claim, "I think that the thunder is giving emphasism", to which a voice from the benches replied, "God is angry.".
The thoughts of the Bishops of Exeter and Chichester on that point will remain a secret, I fear...
Yesterday's business started with the announcement of the death of Lord Blaker, a stalwart of the Conservative benches. Unfortunately, death was always going to be a spectre that haunted the day's events, with the main business of the day being the 5th day of the Committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
Amendment 173, in the name of Lord Falconer, sought to make it possible to accompany someone overseas for the purposes of them committing suicide, an issue which has been the subject of much debate recently.
The genuine concern that loved ones risk prosecution merely for helping someone to a location where they can carry out their settled wish to die with as much dignity as possible was the focus of the amendment, and Lord Falconer spoke movingly yet cautiously in addressing what are deeply held reservations on the part of opponents of the amendment.
It was clearly going to be a clash of the lawyers, and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, another former Lord Chancellor, was quick to raise the issue of the sanctity of life. He also raised the issue of moral coercion of vulnerable people, the fear being that the elderly, especially those with potentially large estates, would be pressurised into committing suicide so as to ensure the maximum inheritance.
The Lords also has a goodly number of doctors, most of whom were opposed to the amendment in line with the stated stance of the British Medical Association.
If I had to pick one intervention, I would probably choose that of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, whose health is sufficently poor that she would potentially benefit from the amendment, yet she is determinedly opposed to it as a member of an organisation called Not Dead Yet UK (they have T-shirts, she advised fellow Peers).
She spoke of the fear that those with terminal illnesses experience, noting that not a single organisation of or for terminally ill people supported the amendment. The fear is that if the State were to sanction any person to assist another in the ending of that person's life, it might switch the mindset of doctors and those who would help the terminally ill to thinking that assisted suicide was in their best interests (the terminally ill, that is).
After a lengthy debate, the amendment fell by 194 votes to 141, with the Liberal Democrat Peers splitting 26 to 21 in favour on a free vote.
The early stages of the debate took place during a thunderstorm, causing Lord Mackay of Clashfern to claim, "I think that the thunder is giving emphasism", to which a voice from the benches replied, "God is angry.".
The thoughts of the Bishops of Exeter and Chichester on that point will remain a secret, I fear...
Lord Malloch Brown calls it a day - reminding us why a cabinet stuffed with Peers needs better scrutiny
It has been announced that Lord Malloch Brown, the spokesman in the Lords for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will be standing down at the end of the Parliamentary session later this month. Actually, most neutral commentators would probably agree that he was exceptionally well qualified to hold his portfolio, and I tend to share that view. His departure will certainly reduce the size and depth of the talent pool on the Labour side of the red benches.
However, it highlights one of the rather less attractive aspects of Gordon Brown's premiership - his habit of recruiting people into government to fill specific roles and bypassing the democratic process by giving them a peerage at the same time. Lord Carter of Barnes and Lord (Digby) Jones of Birmingham have come, caused controversy, and gone, in Digby's case not even hanging around on the Labour benches but moving to the crossbenches (there's gratitude for you...). What ambitious Labour backbenchers make of it all is not recorded, although it seems a long way removed from the 1997 manifesto and its promise of reform of the House of Lords.
It matters because the increasing number of government big hitters in the Lords has yet to be reflected in terms of the coverage of its activities by the national media. A lack of coverage implies a loss of information for the public and, whilst you could read Hansard, most people don't. In the Commons, full time politicians, with researchers and a salary are there to hold ministers to account. In the Lords, unpaid, predominantly part-timers with an average age of 68 and little or no backup are tasked with the job. Yes, there is plenty of experience and knowledge - I'd back Lord Avebury on our benches to hold Lord Malloch Brown to account any time - but the ability to really dig is limited.
It is, I believe, time that we sought to address this potential democratic deficit. If Labour are intent on placing Cabinet members in the Lords, then additional Cranborne money (scroll to bottom of link) should be made available to the opposition frontbenches to ensure proper scrutiny. It's also high time that we started lobbying the media to cover the Lords more effectively. After all, it is our country that they're running...
Slip sliding away...
My Wikio rating appears to be in gradual decline, or not, as the case may be. Now I haven't been as active a blogger as had been the case earlier this year, and my controversy rating has declined somewhat since I took my self-denying ordnance last month. What is a blogger to do? Attack Irfan, that always seems to be in vogue? No, I don't think so. Attack Iain Dale? No, too unoriginal.
In truth, as a civil servant, I don't really do ranting, which works if you're a Tory (what do they feed them?), and I do like to at least comprehend the other side of the argument. I don't really do policy, I do delivery. My words are modestly well-crafted, but not notably impassioned. I tend to nice rather than nasty.
That said, I'm only two places behind Liberal Vision, and there are so many more of them than there are of me...
In truth, as a civil servant, I don't really do ranting, which works if you're a Tory (what do they feed them?), and I do like to at least comprehend the other side of the argument. I don't really do policy, I do delivery. My words are modestly well-crafted, but not notably impassioned. I tend to nice rather than nasty.
That said, I'm only two places behind Liberal Vision, and there are so many more of them than there are of me...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
