New Parliamentary Selection Rules: the underlying principles

These rules shall be used for the selection of prospective parliamentary candidates in all constituencies in England, with the following exceptions: by-elections, the re-selection of sitting MPs, and constituencies in local parties suspended by the region, where separate processes shall apply. In the event of an imminent General Election, the ECC may vary these rules to ensure that all constituencies have an approved candidate in place.

Within this one set of rules, there are two tracks: one for priority seats and one for all other seats. More is expected of priority seats at all stages of the process but it is accepted that development and moving forward seats can ‘opt up’ to the more complex rules at any point.

The selection process shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of Liberal Democracy. Everyone involved in the selection must act in such a way as to ensure that the party is not brought into disrepute. In particular, selections must be conducted in a manner that is:

• Democratic
• Inclusive
• Fair
• Accountable
• Manageable
• Transparent
• Robust

Candidates for selection must make sure that they abide by the candidates’ code of conduct, the Party’s data protection rules and PPERA. Where these rules are silent, the Returning Officer will proceed using these principles as a guide. In addition, the ECC may from time to time issue guidance and clarifications to these rules, which must also be derived from these principles.

In these rules, the words, ‘must’, ‘shall’ and ‘will’ refer to mandatory actions.

The words ‘may’, ‘could’ and ‘should’ refer to optional actions.

Hiding under the shelter of the Regional Constitution...

It is one of the unexpected pleasures in the life of a bureaucrat to discover a whole new range of rules to play with. So you can imagine my delight that the East of England Regional Constitution differs from that in London.

Even better, it has become apparent that my new colleagues haven't had an opportunity to read it themselves, so I find myself as the Region's constitutional guru. Whilst gratifying, it presents its own problem, in that I haven't actually read it in full myself. So, my evening is now dedicated to doing just that, in the first instance to find out what my job is.

I always recommend that people read the rules that govern an organisation at an early stage, on the basis that most people won't. Knowledge is power, and even the inference of knowledge has its benefits, but most importantly, a grasp of process is what enables you to avoid an awful lot of pain. Let me give an illustration...

Most branches of an organisation tend to be run and organised by amateurs, and whilst this is no bad thing, it can lead to difficulties when conflicts arise. Process allows you to move forward even when there are differences of opinion, as it provides a framework for decision making which can be respected, even by those who are in the minority camp. You can imagine how that becomes even more useful in a political organisation, when opinions are firmly held and egos are occasionally fragile. It also means that, when appeals are made to a higher body, they can be dealt with efficiently by people who can refer to that process, see if it has been adhered to, and then rule accordingly.

Constitutions also act as a reminder as to the responsibilities of individuals, committees and working groups. It never ceases to amaze me how organisations transition from year to year, with changes of personnel and direction with so little 'handover'. In my case, my competence appears to have been assumed, and given I had done the job in another Region for three years, that might seem realistic. However, the two Regions, London and the East of England are very different, and the required skill set is not quite the same.

So, back to my papers. I'll let you know what I find in the morning...

Ros in the Lords: Housing (8 July 2010)

This was, apparently, the first debate on this subject in the Lords for four years, sought by Baroness Ford from the Labour benches. Ros was called upon to summate from the Liberal Democrat benches... 

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, this afternoon's debate has been about housing. Many television programmes, which millions of people enjoy, talk about property. However, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ford and Lady Wilkins, reminded us, we are talking about people's homes-the places that should form the secure base from which we all lead our lives, and most of us are lucky enough to do that. In many cases, however, that fails. It is not just that we do not have enough houses; too many houses are in the wrong place at the wrong price and in the wrong condition, and the results are stark. Shelter estimates that more than 1.5 million children live in overcrowded, temporary or run-down accommodation. The effects on their health and educational attainment are profound. We know that their life chances are adversely affected through no fault of their own. Any Government who want to create a genuinely fair society must address that.

There is no doubt that the move to a property-owning society has had profound consequences on all of us. It is interesting how falling house prices are greeted with wailing and gnashing of teeth by the three-quarters of us who currently own our own properties. It ought perhaps to be a glimmer of hope for those who aspire to own property. Recently, however, house price falls have been accompanied by a lending squeeze; so the reality of home ownership is now as far away for many as it ever has been, a point which was well made by my noble friend Lord Teverson. Recent RICS figures show that loan approvals for house purchases are continuing to fall. My first question, therefore, is whether the Government will continue to press the banks over which they have control to free up mortgage lending where that is appropriate.

Over the years that I have been in your Lordships' House, I do not think that I have ever heard any Government put a figure on how far they think property ownership can extend-or, indeed, any kind of recognition that home ownership is simply not the right option for a proportion of people. That has resulted in a lack of genuine planning in terms of the variety and quantities of housing tenure that ought to be available in this country. The lack of viable alternatives has forced some people into home ownership even when that is not the best option for them. The result, particularly now, is that many live in constant fear of default.

The private rented sector has to an extent stepped into that breach and is on the rise. However, it is in urgent need of reform. Most of our private rented sector is in the hands of individual private landlords who own just a few properties and 45 per cent of those properties fail to meet the decent home standards. Do the Government have any plans to boost the provision of rented accommodation through the formation of larger companies which could provide not only a useful investment vehicle but-the point which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, made in his excellent maiden speech-a more professional and more easily regulated private sector?

Rents in the private sector are very high, and in some places this is being driven by the housing benefit system. It is therefore time that we had a review. However, I urge the Government to consider the fact that this review should be driven not solely by the need to cut costs. There is a question of value to the taxpayer. Apart from the human misery concerned, simply driving people into homelessness or creating other problems which actually cost more to put right would be extremely short-sighted. We must be very careful about an arbitrary cap on housing benefit that does not take into account the local costs of housing, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Whatever happens in government, the one piece of legislation that never changes is the law of unintended consequences. The Government must think carefully before they leap into this. Other noble Lords have asked about the levels of funding for housing associations and local authorities. I look forward to the Minister's answer.

On other forms of housing, can the Minister tell us anything about the future of low-cost home ownership schemes such as HomeBuy Direct? Do the Government intend to simplify some of these options, or even to continue them?

The affordability of housing is no doubt governed largely by housing availability. That is driven in turn by the planning system. I welcome the abolition of regional spatial strategies and all that comes with them. I am pleased that local councils will have more control over housing in their areas. However, there are caveats and things that must be watched.

I am worried by the extent to which housing that is driven from the bottom up, welcome as that may be, will not fully take into account other strategic issues such as transport, hospital provision and education. I come from a rural area. Until three years ago, we had an effective sub-regional planning tier known as a county council. It was extremely good. I wonder whether the Government have any plans to give some of the planning powers back to county councils so that they can play a strategic role alongside the districts.

I turn to the question of empty properties. I am very grateful to the Empty Homes Agency for its useful briefing. There are, it tells me, currently 652,000 empty homes in England alone. These are clearly an affront to any society. The coalition agreement said:

"We will explore a range of measures to bring empty homes into use".

Those words are welcome but not as welcome as action would be. When I raised the matter this morning at Question Time, the noble Baroness said that the use of empty homes is a "matter for local authorities". That is true to an extent, but I would be interested to know whether the Government plan to incentivise local authorities to get empty houses back into use. Can the Government encourage the Homes and Communities Agency to change the grant rules for housing associations so that local authorities have a real incentive to buy and refurbish empty homes? Picking up a point made by the right reverend Prelate, could the HCA work up a scheme which would allow homelessness charities, churches and local community groups to buy empty properties in their areas, refurbish them and provide affordable housing? Finally, would the local housing trusts proposed by the Government also be allowed to refurbish empty properties? All of these things could make a very useful contribution to the provision of housing and are very much in line with the themes of big society and localism.

I finish by thanking the noble Baroness for securing this important debate today. I had not appreciated that it had been four years since the last; it does not seem like it. It has also given us the opportunity to hear two extremely good maiden speeches from two noble Lords from whom we look forward to hearing more.

Ros in the Lords: Written Answers (5 July 2010)

It seems that both Ros and I have an interest in holding National Express East Anglia's feet to the fire whilst they work out their severance period...

Railways: Franchises

Question

Asked by Baroness Scott of Needham Market

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by the Minister of State for Transport, Theresa Villiers, on 17 June (Official Report, Commons, col. 58WS) that the procurement timetable for the new Greater Anglia rail franchise is to be revised, what arrangements are in place to ensure that the performance of National Express East Anglia is acceptable.

Earl Attlee: Current contractual provisions in relation to performance on the National Express East Anglia franchise will remain in place and will be fully enforced by Department for Transport officials. These include benchmarks for punctuality, reliability, capacity and cancellations which, if contravened, can result in enforcement action.

Railways: National Express

Question

Asked by Baroness Scott of Needham Market

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to secure an improvement in passenger satisfaction with National Express East Anglia during the period of its extended franchise.

Earl Attlee: Current contractual provisions will continue to apply to the National Express East Anglia franchise and will be rigorously enforced by Department for Transport officials. Although there are no specific passenger satisfaction targets in the contract, there is a service quality regime which attracts incentive or penalty payments for train and station quality standards.

Ros in the Lords: Transport - Motion to Take Note (5 July 2010)

It's always nice to see someone who knows what they're talking about rise to speak, and who better than an Honorary Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation to contribute to a debate on transport... Here is Ros's contribution...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl on his appointment. In the short time with his brief he has already shown himself to be an assiduous Minister and I look forward to working with him on transport issues in the coming months and years.

In his opening remarks he talked about the fundamental role that transport plays in the economic, social and environmental well-being of the community. My interest in transport developed in a much less dramatic way as a councillor in Suffolk when I realised fairly quickly that probably nine out of 10 pieces of casework related to transport in some way or another, whether it was home-to-school transport, a dangerous crossing, an inability to access some sort of public service, or the state of the roads. I have always been interested in the enabling role that transport plays, and the fact that many good policy interventions made by government and local authorities failed to work because nobody properly thought through the transport dimension.

I have never made a pretence of having any great technical expertise on transport but I have a great admiration for those who do. The UK transport industry is a major employer throughout the country. In the past 20 years huge structural changes in the industry mean that transport is much less the preserve of the public service than it used to be and there is huge variation in the size of the organisations concerned, from large multinationals to small specialist companies—indeed, Parry People Movers.

The Brunel report published in November 2008 reported a supply of 87,400 people working in engineering, the technical field and planning across the transport industry. That compared to a demand of 96,900. While I acknowledge that the cancellation or postponement of some projects may have reduced the skills gap, it still exists. The challenge on how to mix economic growth with a low-carbon economy is set to increase the skills shortage in coming years. If we do not meet that challenge our future prosperity will be jeopardised.

Currently, the average age of a chartered engineer is 57. That may be young compared to the membership of this House, but the reality is that over the next decade a huge part of the current knowledge and experience in the transport engineering industry will be retiring. While there are many young people graduating into engineering, many of them then do not go on to work in engineering—they go off and do other things, which are usually better paid.

Young people are required to make a choice about their subject options about 12 years before they would expect to become a chartered engineer or transport planner, so a choice made about topics and subjects this year will affect a young person qualifying in 2022, or thereabouts. Operating on these timescales does not sit comfortably with short-term planning and stop/go investment. Advanced apprenticeships, support for 14 to 19 diplomas and supporting STEM subjects all need funding, and what is more they need employers who have the security of knowing that they will have predictable income streams to pay for the training. Statutory regulations on apprenticeships should be looked at to ensure that they are cost-effective, accessible and manageable, especially for small businesses.

Furthermore, it does not stop with young people. At all levels, changing skill requirements, new and safer working practices, green technologies and other developments mean that the need for training and development is continuous. The costs of that always fall to the industry, which is another reason why industry needs stable investment flows.

The need for skilled, specialised personnel in the transport sector is crucial and will remain so. The supply cannot be turned on and off at will. It takes a considerable time to develop such people, and the timescale goes way beyond our current financial challenges.

At this time, we have to consider a simple economic case: stop/go work flows will make it difficult for even the most enlightened employers to go on investing in good training and development. A lack of short-term prospects could drive skilled people to other sectors or abroad. The result of those two things could exacerbate the skills shortage, driving up costs, when the upturn comes. If the skills base is too far eroded, there will be a real lack of capacity to provide the transport infrastructure needed to sustain growth. The transport industry needs a long-term vision and strategy so that it can resource the skills needed for a low-carbon economy in the future.

I want to say a few words about transport spending in the current environment. In roads, focusing on maintaining the existing asset and using it more effectively should be a priority. It is usually easier to commission and has more immediately visible results. Reactive maintenance—in other words, response to damage—is an inefficient way of dealing with the highway. Planned preventive maintenance offers better value for money and is more efficient.

Road safety is not just a matter of quality of life —often literally—although that is clearly uppermost in our minds. It is also a question of value for money —savings for the NHS in dealing with the injuries caused by road traffic accidents, but also the long-term care required by people with the most severe injuries. Yet there are very few training requirements for people in road safety specialisms, and what little there is is provided by local authorities on a discretionary basis. Of course, when money is tight, discretionary services, especially training, tend to be high on the cuts list.

It is possible to build incentives for training into our procurement processes. For example, the East Midlands Highways Alliance is a collaboration of a number of companies and local authorities whose aim is to improve highways services in the region, and includes the development of a skills academy. The savings to its partners have been huge over recent years.

I have always used trains and, since becoming president of my party, have spent an inordinate amount of time on the railways. I have seen them at their best, and I have seen them at their worst. My overwhelming feeling is that the current franchising scheme, and the highly complex regulatory regime within which the rail industry has to operate, has completely lost sight of the needs of the passengers. I hope that the very welcome review of the franchising system will at last begin to put the passenger first. The fares system is in chaos and there is a widespread lack of understanding of how it works, even among the staff who operate the system. Queues for tickets are at unacceptable levels and should be dealt with as a priority. There are far too many bus substitutions and too few visible staff to help when things go wrong. When passengers complain to train operators, they are often told that their freedom to respond to passengers is hampered by franchises which are overregulated and micromanaged by the Department for Transport. Surely departmental oversight should be focused on the things that really matter: punctuality, reliability, cost and, above all, passenger satisfaction.

It is surely no coincidence that the three train operating companies with the highest performance and passenger satisfaction are those with the longest franchises. Can the Minister tell us the Government's thinking on longer franchises? Does he agree that the decision to award a franchise should not be on cost alone; it should be on improving service quality and how much the operator is prepared to put in? With refranchising of the west coast main line due in 2012 and of the east coast main line next year, and with the whole question of my local, rather benighted, rail franchise, National Express East Anglia, can he tell us whether they will come under the new regime which is currently under consultation, and what will be the timetable? Furthermore, will he say something about rolling stock? There is clearly a need for new rolling stock, but at the moment there seems to be a huge amount of unnecessary government intervention between train operators and the roscos.

I am very pleased that this House has had the opportunity to debate transport matters at this early stage in the life of the new Government. I look forward to contributions from other noble Lords. The importance of transport in all areas of our lives is not always recognised, and it is good that it has been today.

Thoughts from the Train: please do not feed, taunt or abuse the Civil Servant...

It is a tough time to be a civil servant right now. A two-year pay freeze for many of us, pensions under threat, redundancy terms to be slashed, tens of thousands of jobs to be axed, who'd want to join an organisation under such circumstances? Making a case for civil servants is, I admit, a bit like trying to defend anthrax, but perhaps one should explain why some of my colleagues are so unhappy.

On pensions, there was a covenant of sorts. The benefit that the pension represented was factored into our rates of pay, a point made during every pay negotiation by management. Now, all of a sudden, the pension is a burden on the State. Yes, it probably is, but you can understand the level of disgruntlement this might generate. Besides, it wasn't civil servants who reduced the retirement age to sixty, it was politicians trying to reduce payroll numbers in the late-eighties.

As far as redundancy terms are concerned, there is no doubt that their generosity has acted as a disincentive to weeding out the lazy, the inefficient and the downright disruptive. Instead, enhanced retirement packages, natural wastage and the non-filling of vacancies have been the preferred tools used to cut numbers. For an increasingly twitchy Civil Service, who have already struck for three days this year in opposition to proposed changes to the redundancy terms, and are bracing themselves for job losses, such proposals look like provocation.

The hope, of course, is that the private sector will create enough new jobs to more than offset those lost in the public one. However, many Civil Service jobs have, over four decades, been transferred to areas of relatively high unemployment, away from London and the South East. If you're working in Scotland or the North East, for example, the promise of private sector opportunities might not be as convincing as it might be in, say, South London.

And because we're emerging tentatively from recession, levels of natural wastage are likely, in historic terms, to be relatively low. Enhanced pension incentives don't really stack up, whilst leaving vacancies unfilled is not going to do the trick. All of which makes redundancy a looming cloud on the horizon for civil servants.

So, when you read of threats of industrial unrest in the public sector, remember what the average civil servant is thinking. You probably know at least one. You're probably even related to one. And like animals in a zoo, civil servants have feelings too...

EMLD and me - the dawning of a new era?

Those of you who have been following the current debate on Liberal Democrat Voice will be aware that I find myself in the opposite side of the argument to the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats, not necessarily for the first time. I'm not going to repeat the arguments here, needless to say that I have my severe doubts as to whether their proposal will be passed by Conference and, even if it does, whether it will achieve what they hope of it.

However, as a result, I have been 'challenged' by their outgoing Chair, Baroness Hussein-Ece, or Meral to her friends, to attend EMLD's Annual General Meeting on Tuesday, July 27th, at 6.30 p.m. at Portcullis House in Westminster. And, I'm going to go, not because I might change my mind, but because it is right to find out what they're actually doing, rather than carp from the sidelines in an ill-informed manner. You never know, I might be able to assist in some small way.

But in case anyone asks, I'm not planning to get too involved. I'm probably over-committed enough as it is...

Rules for the selection of parliamentary candidates in England: an introduction

Overview of the process

In order to ensure that all constituencies have an appropriately approved and democratically selected candidate for a General Election Article 11 of the Federal Constitution specifies that all states shall agree a fair selection process. These rules govern that process and must be used by all Local Parties in England for the purpose of selecting Parliamentary Candidates.

Constituencies starting the process of selection must ask their Regional Candidates’ Chair (RCC) to appoint an independent Returning Officer (RO) from outside the constituency. The local party executive will agree the appointment of a shortlisting committee with the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer will then work with the shortlisting committee to ensure that the selection process is completed satisfactorily in accordance with these rules.

Phase 1: The shortlisting committee and Returning Officer work together to prepare an application pack and advertise the seat.

 

Phase 2: The shortlisting committee scrutinise applications and shortlist applicants for the selection.

 

Phase 3: The candidates’ campaign: members’ mailing, leaflets and personal contact. Postal votes applied for and sent out by the Returning Officer.

 

Phase 4: The hustings meeting, vote and count. The result is declared.

Those new English candidate selection rules...

So, we have some new Rules, following their ratification by English Council earlier today. My intention is to publish parts of them over the coming days, starting with the introduction (a very fine place to start, as Julie Andrews might have put it)...

Liberal Youth: unto thee a Chair is born...

It has to be said that the Liberal Youth count took place under rather trying circumstances. High humidity, combined with the notoriously airless quality of the boardroom at Cowley Street, made the task of counting ballot papers somewhat less than entirely attractive. But needs must, and with a new Executive Committee due to take up their posts just thirty-five hours after the scheduled start of the count, delay wasn't really an option.

The Chair election was closely fought, with three of the five candidates capturing most of the first preferences as follows;

Matthew Folker - 48 votes
Richard Heinrich/Phil Jarvest - 41 votes
Adam Parsons - 11 votes
Martin Shapland - 58 votes
Richard Wilson - 5 votes
Reopen nominations - 11 votes

One curiosity was the final ballot paper, across which was scrawled 'BNP'. One hopes that this was intended to be post-ironic, although that might be being a mite generous...

At this stage, the technically correct procedure would have been to eliminate Messrs Parsons, Wilson and RON, as pointed out by Theo Butt Philip. However, in order to simplify the process in the eyes of those present, I transferred them separately, a point that was published via Twitter. The net result was;

Matthew Folker - 52 votes
Richard Heinrich/Phil Jarvest - 46 votes
Martin Shapland - 70 votes
Non-transferable - 6 votes

So, it was goodbye to Sheffield's 'dynamic duo'. It was, given the split, always unlikely to produce a come from behind victory for Matt Folker but in the event, their transfers only served to widen the margin between the final pair, the final result was;

Matthew Folker - 67 votes
Martin Shapland - 96 votes
Non-transferable - 11 votes

Accordingly, Martin Shapland was duly declared to be the 2010/11 Chair of Liberal Youth.

Ros in the Lords: Local Government Bill (Second Reading), 30 June 2010

Ah yes, the joys of Local Government Review in Devon and Norfolk, where the outgoing Government behaved with such utter disregard for the criteria they themselves had established that the Orders creating unitary authorities for Exeter and Norwich were quashed at judicial review...

Anyway, here's what Ros had to say yesterday...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, when I retrieved the notes that I had written for the original Second Reading debate in this House, I saw that they start by saying, "Congratulate Baroness Hanham". I had intended at the time to congratulate her on her new job, but time has moved on, so perhaps I should congratulate her on getting so far with the Bill.

I was the party's Front-Bench spokesman when the Government of the day brought out their White Paper introducing this round of unitary government. At the time, I was prepared to give the Government a fair wind because I am someone who was and remains quite open to the idea of unitary authorities. I can see their benefits in many cases, but only if it is a matter of well informed local choice and following clear processes.

As we moved through the first tranches of authorities to go through this process, I became increasingly concerned about a lack of clarity on the desired outcome, particularly on how the five tests would be assessed and measured. It became clear that there was an absence of impartial information to the public in the areas affected and that there was no objective method for determining the state of local public opinion. All these defects led to protracted processes, many going as far as judicial review, and we ended up with Parliament taking decisions close to electoral deadlines, along with all the uncertainty that that brought with it. Despite that, I did not oppose any of those orders because I believed that the Government were acting in good faith.

By the time that we came to this tranche of orders, relating to Norfolk and Devon-and, in parentheses, my home county of Suffolk-I had lost all faith in a process that by then had taken three years, during which time the Government had constantly moved the goalposts. Not only has that led to the problem of uncertainty for staff, highlighted by my noble friend Lord Rennard, but it has made recruitment difficult, it has undermined partnerships between the local authorities and other bodies and it has had a hugely detrimental effect on good governance for all the councils concerned.

The counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon are similar in character, yet they were treated very differently by the Labour Government. In Norfolk and Devon, the county towns were to be given unitary status. As we heard from the noble Baroness, there may be good reasons why this is desirable, but the supporters of this option have never given me a clear understanding of how we will deal with the impact on the rest of these counties, which will have the heart ripped out of their governance when the county town is taken away.

Concerns about the financial case led to a direction from the Permanent Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, has highlighted what an unusual step that is, although we find now that there was a rash of these in the dying days of the previous Government.

If you understood the rules that the previous Government were working by, you would have known why Norwich and Exeter were to be given unitary status and therefore you would have assumed that, using the same criteria, Ipswich, too, would have been given unitary status. However, it was not: Suffolk was told to go away, have a citizens' convention and then report back. That could have been done three years ago, which would have saved everyone time and money. In fact, local authorities in Suffolk are now working well together and sharing services-in some cases, they are sharing chief executives, while two district councils are looking at merging all their shared functions.

There is only one reason why Ipswich was treated differently. It was in the Labour Party's direct political interests to have unitary councils in Norwich and in Exeter, but Labour did not care about Ipswich because it had lost so much ground there. The decision was pushed through in the dying days of the previous Parliament for purely political reasons. We hear today from the Benches opposite that the coalition Government have no mandate to do this, that the Permanent Secretary was wrong, that the Boundary Committee was wrong and that the High Court was wrong. Indeed, the report of the Merits Committee and the vote in this House have been glossed over. It would appear to the Benches opposite that everyone is wrong except them.

People in these counties deserve the right to have clarity about the way forward. To keep going in this way is grossly irresponsible of the Members opposite. It is time to get behind the people of all these counties, to support them in the services that they want and to leave behind these divisive, unpleasant and, in many cases, outdated arguments. I have heard arguments from the Benches opposite that are 20 years old. Councils and counties have moved on-they are no longer backwaters-so, please, let us get on, get the Bill through and give the people in these areas the certainty that they deserve in their local government.

A bad week for the Conservatives in Bury St Edmunds

Hot of the presses comes news that our local MP, David Ruffley, has taken an indefinite leave of absence from his position, following last week's incident where he narrowly avoided death after falling under a train at Victoria Station. In the meantime, neighbouring MP's, Matt Hancock (Suffolk West) and Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) will be taking surgeries within the constituency.

Whilst I am deeply sympathetic as to David's plight, it does leave the constituency effectively unrepresented in Parliament, and there is a question as to whether this is acceptable. Unfortunately, the job of Member of Parliament is an unusual one, in that there is no right of substitution, and until such time as this exists, residents from Creeting St Peter to Bury St Edmunds are without their tribune at Westminster. Perhaps, in such a circumstance, where the MP is unable to perform his/her duties due to ill health unlikely in itself to be terminal, there should be a means whereby someone could stand in.

You see, I can't help feeling that the pressure to resume his duties is not conducive to a swift recovery, and depression is not something that can be treated on a schedule. However, my thoughts go out to David, and I trust that we'll see him resume when he is confident and comfortable enough to do so.

Meanwhile, on Friday, news leaked out that Tory-run Mid Suffolk District Council had engaged bailiffs to visit the constituency Conservative Association's headquarters at Woolpit to collect more than £2,000 in unpaid business rates. Apparently, a number of letters from the council had not been responded to, so they called in the bailiffs in March.

Curiously, the current Chair claims that they have no financial problems now, yet their then Chair sent out a letter to members only last January seeking contributions to pay off a debt of £130,000. Either they have done some stellar fundraising, or their finances aren't quite as rosy as they're letting on...

Liberal Youth: It's the final countdown!

Yes, polls close tomorrow and for the myriad candidates, the tension really starts.

However, for those of you who enjoy the excitement and humour of a good count, the results show will commence at 1 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) at Party HQ in Cowley Street, where my team of wizened Italian democracy engineers and I will attempt to demonstrate what you can do with an 'O' level in Mathematics, a sense of humour and a lot of imagination. I'll be live blogging the results as best I can, which will doubtless improve the visitor numbers at 'Liberal Bureaucracy' (cynical, moi?).

Naturally, I'll be starting with the election of a new Chair, working through the posts, with the English Convenor being declared last - unless I change my mind (and that's always possible).

Bonne chance to one and all!

An idyllic weekend in the Gipping Valley

It's late on Sunday evening as I write these words, and it's been a pretty good weekend. Ros and I have spent the weekend expanding into our new building, which is shorthand for 'Ros has organised everything and I've done what I'm told to do'. The sun has shone, the odd glass of wine has been drunk, the barbecue has been cranked into action for the first time this summer, and life looks a lot clearer all of a sudden.

I am, it seems, beginning to get the hang of village life. Paying our annual subscription for 'The Grapevine', our local parish magazine, chatting to the neighbours about the appalling state in which 'Cross Keys Cottage' has been left in, talking to the outgoing Treasurer of the Community Council about transferring responsibility for financial reporting over to the Parish Council, it's the small things that make a village tick. I even found time to tidy the Parish noticeboard.

And it dawns on me just how many of my fellow villagers contribute to those activities. Five Parish Councillors, Violet, our churchwarden, Neighbourhood Watch members, Liz who organises the Bonus Ball for the Community Council, Georgina who delivers 'The Grapevine' and collects subscriptions, all of them contribute in their own way, finding a little time in their day to make a difference.

Ah well, better get on, I suppose, back to the city in the morning...

Liberal Bureaucracy, in conjunction with the Party Presidency, opens its new office!

It has been a long time in the building, but today saw the 'official' opening of our new office. All of my stuff arrived from storage yesterday morning, and Ros and I have spent two days unpacking and putting away a whole bunch of stuff. I've reassembled the PC, printer and other stuff, and I am now sitting on our new office chair (built by my own fair hands), at our desk, looking out across our garden (the less said about that, the better, I'd say).

We have bookshelves to keep our papers and books organised, a CD rack (my classical music collection is back in my own hands after more than a year), and even a separate WC so that we don't have to go back into the house if nature calls.

What this means is that I can actually function as a bureaucrat for the first time since the house in Kingsbury was sold. It also means that Ros can do her research from home, respond to correspondence easily, and is able to function as Party President when not in London.

All in all, it's pretty exciting. And now that it's done, I can catch up with everything else...

Liberal Youth: where the Constitution is silent, the Returning Officer speaks...

15.1 In the event of an ambiguity arising concerning the interpretation of this Constitution, subject to the provisions of 12.10 above, the matter shall be referred for a Rule of Interpretation to the Chair or, if the ambiguity relates to an LIBERAL YOUTH election, the Returning Officer.

Curiously, the Liberal Youth Constitution is silent on what happens if an ordinary member commits an election offence as defined by Article 9.15. It does, at Article 9.12 (h), give me the power to take action, up to and including disqualification, against candidates who breach any clause of Article 9.15.

However, it seems to me that, if an ordinary member commits such an offence, and cannot be directly linked to the campaign of a candidate, the authors of the Constitution would not have intended that they be at liberty to do so without hinderance or penalty. I therefore declare, using the powers vested in me under Article 15.1, to issue the following Rule of Interpretation;

Article 9.16 (a)

Any member of Liberal Youth, other than a candidate, deemed to have committed an offence under Article 9.15 by the Returning Officer, might be punished by loss of franchise for a specified period. The same right of appeal as specified in Article 9.12 (h) shall apply to any such ruling. Such a ruling shall not preclude further action being taken against said person(s) under Article 4.4 of this Constitution.

And, having posted notice of this Rule of Interpretation, it is my intention to utilise it...

Liberal Youth and the (lack of) respect agenda

It had all been going reasonably well. Lots of candidates out there making the case for their election, plenty of interest, my e-mail had been pretty quiet, and I was just beginning to relax... Big mistake.

The most frustrating part of last year's round of Liberal Youth elections was the sense that individuals felt themselves free to write and propagate attacks on opponents, bystanders and, to be honest, anyone who took an interest. Leaking selectively to a prominent Conservative blogger (although not always accurately), endorsements made on behalf of groups without even the faintest veneer of proper consultation and a widespread lack of consideration for the feelings of others were just some of the 'highlights'.

It wasn't big, and it wasn't clever, and it sent out a signal that this was an organisation not to be taken very seriously, an organisation so mired in personality clashes that it would be unable to function without continuous infighting. And so it turned out, with virtually every member of the newly elected Executive having to be replaced at one point or another.

I had hoped that the lesson would be learned. Clearly, it hasn't been. So, putting aside my Returning Officer hat and replacing it with my 'old enough to be your father' hat, here are some suggestions for Liberal Youth members...

• Why not, if you are endorsing a candidate, or making the case for yourself, talk about your strengths and qualities rather than frame the discussion in terms of the perceived failings of others?
• Remember, what you place in a public domain is just that, public. It can be used, abused and recycled endlessly, and regardless of whether you, or your chosen candidate win or not, it will limit what you can achieve and with whom. In any event, it hardly marks you out as a potential team player.
• Do you enjoy being slagged off by your peers? If not, how do you justify slagging off other people? If you do, on the other hand, there may be other ways of satisfying that...
• Indeed, do you really mean to come across as rude and vaguely unpleasant? Do you look like an adult? Wouldn't it be better to sleep on it before you press the send button?

I think that I've said enough. I can't and won't discipline individuals for behaving like idiots, although the rules on defamation etc. still apply. I would be happier, however, if some of the more trigger happy members refrain from intimidatory threats of legal action (I judge that to be likely to represent a breach of Article 9.15 (g) of the Liberal Youth Constitution).

All of the above said, Liberal Youth is the property of its members, and as such, individual members have a right to behave as they see fit. It will be for others to judge whether or not that is a good thing. However, as John Donne might have put it;

No SAO is an island, entire of itself...any SAO's death diminishes me, because I am involved in the Liberal Democrats; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Good evening, Liberal Youth, and God bless...

David Ruffley: vulture watch over Creeting St Peter...

The report that my local MP, David Ruffley, threw himself under a train at Victoria on Thursday, comes as particularly unwelcome news. In truth, there had been rumours about his state of mind for some months, and his public appearances were said to be increasingly rare, but I cannot imagine that anyone had expected events to take such a dramatic turn.

So let me put on record my hope that David recovers quickly, and that those who care for him are able to rally around quickly. Issues surrounding depression are still very much taboo in the Westminster village, and it seems likely that he needed more support than he was getting from those around him.

Of course, what this means is that, whether one likes it or not, Bury St Edmunds is on by-election watch. My preferred option is that David Ruffley is given the time and space to recover, is allowed an opportunity to make a decision as to his future in politics that is best for him, and that whatever decision he does take is respected by politicians of all parties and by the local media. I fear that it will not be easy though.

In the meantime, I presume that all four national political parties represented in local politics here in mid-Suffolk will be considering how to react to this development. The need to be ready in the event that a by-election is called means that there will be conjecture and speculation. Given the size of his majority, it will be seen as a genuine opportunity for an ambitious Conservative, especially given the predilection of local Conservative Associations not to select local candidates.

The other parties will see a by-election as an opportunity to test their strength in a post-Coalition environment. Will the Liberal Democrats be able to hold onto the second place they gained in May, or even advance? Will Labour make up ground lost in a seat where they only narrowly lost in 1997? Will the Greens have more luck in a seat where they have both county and district councillors than their rather disappointing performance last month might indicate? All of this is conjecture, and is contingent on David Ruffley and how he fares over the next few weeks.
>
My hope is that everyone can behave sensibly in the coming weeks, and that any vultures choosing to circle over our constituency will at least behave with discretion. In the past, there have been suggestions of opportunism related to potential by-elections but it is difficult to perform sensible short-term and medium-term planning when events are fast-moving and unpredictable. One can only really hope for the best...

Glamour and the Liberal Democrats - not a phrase I would expect to write...

In my role as Presidential Consort, I had been invited to attend what had been billed as a party for Liberal Democrat staff and volunteers on Tuesday night. The venue, the Park Plaza London, across Westminster Bridge from Parliament, was interesting, as it only opened recently, but given the recent announcement of job losses in Cowley Street, I was expecting a slightly subdued event.

I put on a suit and a happy smiling face, and turned up to find that something strange was happening, in that this was a much bigger event than I had expected, with a ballroom filled with tables and an all-star cast of ministers, MPs and Peers. All in all, it looked like an event held to celebrate a glorious victory, an event reflecting confidence in the future.

Having shed my wallflower disguise, at least for the time being, it was nice to catch up with a lot of people I have run into over the past two years, including Ian Swales and Mike Crockart, who we visited during the campaign, the ubiquitous Daddy Richard and Auntie Helen and a number of senior Peers, including our Glorious Leader, Tom McNally (I have to confess that my loyalties are to the Lords these days rather than the Commons).

With a speech from our host, Ramesh Diwan, a few comments from Ros and a speech by some chap called Clegg, it was turning into quite an evening, but the Shirley Bassey impersonator (good enough to fool many of us), turned it into something definitively LibDem.

In truth, we aren't used to glamour as Liberal Democrats. Our events, with the exception of our Federal Conferences, tend to be slightly amateurish, if more accessible than similar events held by the Conservative and Labour Parties. We're more school hall, than conference hotel, and it will be interesting to see if that changes now that we are a party of government.

I should also note my regret at the loss of some very good people. It is true that, after General Elections, we frequently make significant staffing cuts, but it is never pleasant or desirable. We are very lucky to attract some very dedicated people to our cause, and I hope that those who have had to be released will find new jobs very soon.

The Lords discusses short-term, high-interest credit... and so does the Office of Fair Trading...

Loan Companies: Interest Rates - 17 June 2010

Asked By Baroness Scott of Needham Market

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to regulate loan companies charging high rates of interest.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): My Lords, my noble friend’s Question is timely as the Office of Fair Trading has just released the findings from its review of the high-cost credit sector. Many noble Lords will be aware that I am a long-standing campaigner for consumer rights in this area, and I see this review as an opportunity for Government to reflect on these very high rates of interest and consider whether there is a better way for us to approach this market.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Is my noble friend aware of the growing number of companies, some of which advertise on television, which offer short-term loans at extremely high rates of interest—in one case the APR is 2,689 per cent—plus an arrangement fee? Does she share my concern that a small short-term loan could very quickly turn into a very large lifetime millstone?

The debate that followed touched on issues of accuracy in advertising, as well as the validity of using APR as an indicator, but I would pick out Michael Martin's contribution, seeking support for community-based credit unions as a means of increasing the options available to those on the financial margins, as a potentially important solution to the problem of lack of choice and information in the short-term credit market.

Meanwhile, as indicated in Baroness Wilcox's answer, the Office of Fair Trading published its review of high cost credit. I admit to some surprise that the sector is worth £7.5 billion, but suspect that it is growing fast. Working in an environment where many of my colleagues earn less than the national average salary, I know that a number of them have, at times, lived from pay cheque to pay cheque, and with this emerging option to bridge the occasional gap, I suspect that some of them may have considered using payday loans.

I'm not keen on introducing onerous restrictions on these small-scale lenders, so the OFT's suggestion that the key issues revolve around enhanced choice and better information as to the options available appeals to me. However, it is a subject which lends itself to populist campaigns by the press, and I would be surprised if we didn't see further debate in the coming years.