Lynne Featherstone's Parliament and Haringey diary

Baby Peter - Haringey even worse than we thought!

2009-07-03T12:19:00.002+01:00

The Ofsted Report on Haringey Council's progress on child protection since the fall out after Baby P andsince the installation of a new Director of Children's Services was published this morning.

It makes miserable reading as the key findings are that the situation in Haringey Child Protection was even worse than we thought with a 400 case backlog. Either Haringey didn't know how bad they were or they were hiding how bad they were - either way a terrifying prospect.

The report states: 'Significant shortcomings remian which means that children and young people in Haringey are not yet consistently safeguarded.'

And goes onto say 'The Council has made limited progress overall in addressing the areas of weakness identified in the November 2008 joing area review.'

'Capacity to improve with in teh council and across the partnership is limited overall.'

WHilst the report rightly recognises the efforts that have been made by staff to improve the service and safeguard the Borough's children the main message is that children and young people are still not safe and that progress is limited and the capacity to improve that situation is also rubbish.

Peter Lewis (new Director on very high salary) said it would take him three years to really turn Haringey around. However, this report would seem to indicate that he is not track - or at least a fast enough track - to do so.

I will be seeking a meeting with him - to find out why there has been such slow progress and what the issues are. Certainly there is a shortage of social workers - and they are not rushing to Haringey to help.

BUt I have to say if things don't speed up in the next six months maximum - then Ed Balls is going to have to put Haringey into special measures. We cannot continue with our children not being safeguarded properly.

Equality Bill: equal pay

2009-06-28T14:33:00.001+01:00

There were four sessions of the Equality Bill Committee last week, so for this post I’ve picked out the arguments around unequal pay between men and women. So to the normal anonymous commentators who take exception whenever I blog about discrimination about women – I expect to hear from you shortly!

First up - hypothetical comparators. When you bring a case for discrimination in pay, currently the woman has to point to a similar job being done by a man – i.e. there has to be a real comparator to prove discrimination. This is quite different to any other case you can bring on discrimination. If you are black and believe you have been discriminated against - you don't need a comparator at all - for example.

The reason this continually comes up as an issue - and as a barrier to women being able to bring claims - is that there are many jobs that are almost solely done by women - dinner ladies, lots of carer jobs, seamstresses etc. Traditionally these 'women's' jobs have been paid poorly as women's work has always borne the stigma of not being as important as men's work and consequently is paid at a lower rate.

I am not sure why the Government continues to resist the introduction of the ability to use a hypothetical comparator. However, resist the Solicitor General did. My arguments weaved around the fact that there often isn't 'evidence' because men don't do the comparator work – and so insisting on a traditional comparator locks out whole areas of possible discrimination from action. This argument has been put many, many times by others before. It is used elsewhere quite commonly to resolve the issue around women's work not having a comparator. And it is clearly outrageous that it is only in discrimination in women's pay that a real comparator is required. So - shame on the Government on this one!

Another big issue was Clause 73 - gender pay gap information. This is the one you may have heard about - and is the Government's proposal that companies of over 250 people will have to publish the pay patterns for their male and female employees - so that employees can see for themselves if they are being discriminated against and external bodies like the Equality and Human Rights Commission can judge if there is systemic discrimination.

Problem from my point of view is this clause only suggests that the information be published and leaves it as voluntary until at least the year 2013. As the Equal Pay Act was passed 39 years ago and women are still paid 17% less then men for equal work - we are sick of waiting.

So instead of this weak measure, the Lib Dems think there should be compulsory pay audits - and that if companies (and we think over 100 employees would be a much better number to encompass a reasonable proportion of the population 80% of whom work in the private sector) had to publish this information - women would be able to bring claims as they could see if they were unfairly paid. So could men for that matter.

So our argument is about letting employers off the hook for another four years. And as I pointed out to the Minister - we don't know what hue the next government will be and if (heaven forefend) it is a Tory government - then hell would freeze over before they introduced the compulsory element.

I used many a persuasive argument. Some of the Labour backbenchers in committee agreed with me. But the Minster was determined to keep it voluntary - referring continually to the CBI, the Equality Commission and the Government agreeing on 'metrics' by which progress could be measured. So - I might as well have been whistling Dixie as the Minster was set in stone and clung to somehow this all being alright in the future.

Then there was the issue of allowing 'representative action'. Currently, if a woman believes she has been discriminated against in terms of pay she can take the claim to an employment tribunal. Firstly - you have to be quite brave and assertive to take a claim forward. Secondly, the resources for tribunals etc are so inadequate that there is currently a backlog of women waiting - and waiting - and waiting. Thousands and thousands of women are held in this backlog - and women have actually died waiting for justice. There is nothing in the Bill that increases resources - and that would not be the whole answer anyway.

The proposed amendment would allow 'representative action'. This would mean that if there were other women who were discriminated against in the same way - they could be represented as a group by either the trade unions or indeed the Equality Commission. But again the Government resisted this most obvious of moves forward - backed as they proudly claimed by the CBI.

Well - we were backed by all the women’s' organisations you can imagine - who are just sick of warm words from the Government but no real action. For we don’t just need laws about equal pay – there also needs to be the ability to bring cases.

The Government, I think, got the message - as the Solicitor General said they were going to consult (again) and whilst she attacked me stridently over the suggestion during the debate - at the end she conceded that they would probably be able to bring something along these lines back in the autumn when the legislation passes to the Lords for its scrutiny there.

So - we fight on - and will bring some of these key issues back at the Report Stage of the Bill in the Commons chamber. The Government is clearly in thrall to the CBI and refuses to take the steps that would deliver equal pay. How can a Labour government fail so monumentally - even if only as their legacy - to deliver this most important of steps towards equal pay for women?

Anonymous job applicatons: who's afraid of a bit of evidence?

2009-06-28T10:24:00.003+01:00

So - the Mail on Sunday is sounding off about some of the work the Government is undertaking to prove or disprove the theory that discrimination exists in the form of applicants for jobs getting eliminated because they have names that give away their ethnicity, gender or age.

Apparently the Department of Work and Pensions sent out two thousand applications using false names to judge the response. The Mail characterises it as to see 'if they are racist'. And how dare they waste businesses' time. And the CBI joins in. How dare they etc.

Well - I say well done Government. I am glad they are carrying on testing my idea about anonymous job applications because if my theory is proved that by removing names and replacing them with a number on applications we end up with people not being discarded from the first sift of applications because their name shows they are black, female or old - that will be a very, very good thing. And it won't cost business anything virtually.

And if the CBI are confident that I'm wrong? Well, they shouldn't be worried about evidence being gathered to find out!

Proof is in the pocket: the Equality Bill

2009-06-28T09:39:00.002+01:00

Earlier this week I did a blog post for e-Politix.com:

Proof is in the pocket

Perhaps you have to be a solicitor to understand why it is necessary to rewrite the law to say the same thing. Working on the Equality Bill has been like a labyrinthine legislative version of spot-the-difference. On the one hand a myriad of regulations and legislation spanning 40 years, and on the other a new single tome – the Equality Bill.

To be fair, there are a few obvious differences – such as ending disparity of protections between different types of discrimination, most notably age. However, it will come as no surprise that, as a party with liberty and equality at the heart of our ideology, we wanted more than just a re-stating of existing law. Just tidying up the legislation implies that those who face discrimination are well enough protected. This could not be further from the truth, particularly when it comes to the workplace.

The flashing fluorescent elephant in the room when it comes to employment discrimination is of course equal pay for women. What the government is proposing is new, but not radical. The bill gives powers that require companies with over 250 employees to publish rudimentary information about the difference between what their male and female employees are paid.

When it comes to equal pay, equality campaigners could be forgiven for thinking they are stuck in a time-warp. Flash back to the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the government of the day imposed a time delay to allow businesses to comply. Forty years later, the government is giving businesses time to comply voluntarily with its pay gap publishing requirements. How much more time is needed, and more importantly, how much longer should women wait? My thinking is that they have waited long enough.

Good regulation must engage all stakeholders. Only through listening can government understand how to give the greatest effect to its intentions and to make sure any possible negative consequences are properly accounted for.

Businesses have legitimate concerns about how new equal pay requirements might affect them. In a time of recession when margins get even tighter, new regulations that impose compliance costs must be carefully considered and where possible mitigated against, for example by excluding smaller businesses.

My experience is that businesses are alive to the problem of unequal pay, but I am slightly more suspicious about how they think it should be solved. If the business lobby is to be believed, the pay gap is all the government's fault, because of the poor quality of careers advice given to young women. Careers advisors telling girls to be hairdressers not bankers does not account for the systematic discrimination against women that sees them receive roughly 17 per cent less pay. If only the problem was that simple to solve.

The issue goes much deeper, to the core of business practice. It is about their policies, their culture – the whole way of doing business and how this impacts on employees both male and female. All too often equal pay is seen as just a women's issue, but what about the business culture where it is frowned upon for a man to take emergency time off to look after a sick child who has been sent home from nursery. More often than not this duty seems to fall on the mother. The implications of this mentality will ripple throughout her career and will ultimately be reflected in her (and his) pay.

To tackle this we must expose the impact of such practices through revealing the true extent of pay disparity. The government's pay gap information is a feeble, half-hearted measure that even businesses agree won't do what it is designed to. A proper pay audit is when you get under the bonnet of a company and actually look at the nature of the jobs, comparing them and how they are paid. Government should support businesses in this process by making it as simple and as inexpensive to carry out as possible.

As the bill passes through Parliament, where the minutiae of the differences between old regulations and new law is raked over, I can't help fearing an opportunity to tackle gender pay inequality head-on is being missed. I very much hope it is not another 40 years before this inequality affecting half the population is looked at again.

What to do about the Muswell Hill bus stop?

2009-06-25T22:05:00.002+01:00

Yesterday first meeting of the day was with Transport for London (and Cllrs Martin Newton and Gail Engert) with regard to the bus stop (W7 and 144) sited about 100–150 metres down Muswell Hill from the roundabout.

The problem is that older people, mothers with buggies and those with mobility problems have real difficulty getting to this crucial bus stop because of the gradient of the hill. It is a very busy bus stop – and it becomes even more crucial with the imminent opening of Hornsey Central Health Centre, as it is only this bus that goes directly from Muswell Hill to the centre.

A little child coming down the hill towards the bus stop fell over whilst we were standing there – as if to illustrate the point. TfL understood the issue. They have now gone away to see which option might be possible: resiting the bus stop (unlikely), adding in a stop at the roundabout (most possible of the alternatives), extending the route to enable a bus stop along Broadway or Fortis Green (less likely). Anyway – as I said – TfL have now gone away to look at the options. Let’s hope that they take the proper action – because it really is a huge issue for older people who have to get to their doctor or to the centre for other health checks and cannot negotiate the hill safely.

At lunchtime I went to a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/AIDS. One of my constituents was there – and we are going to meet up locally to see how we can take forward both the normalising of HIV / AIDS so that the stigma is further reduced and more people learn that there is really no difference between someone with HIV/AIDS and someone without the chronic disease – except the illness, which isn't catching and no longer means dying. We have let this slip off the agenda a bit – but I think it needs another awareness campaign. And perhaps even more importantly – a campaign to get people to come forward for testing. There is still a reluctance – but if tested early – the treatments now are fantastic (although tough at times). There is no longer a death sentence to having the disease – but you have to get tested to get the medicine!

Then it was off to New Scotland Yard to meet with the Trafficking Unit. I wanted to meet with them because locally I have been concerned about the girls working in a massage parlour and the extent of the adverts in the back of some of our local newspapers which blatantly advertise things like ‘new girls arriving all the time’.

In fact, in terms of the newspaper ads (which I thought would be an easy thing for the squad to tackle) they say it’s a difficult line between trafficking and prostitution, and chasing down ads doesn’t really address the organised crime and the challenges of bringing and persuading trafficked girls and women to safety. The unit is really targeting enforcement and has had some success. Sadly – the Government seems keen to stop their funding – which is clearly insane given they are the only unit tackling this and it is highly, highly specialised.

We looked also at the issues around trafficked children - and Haringey is an area where there are some concerns around this issue. I remember there was always discussion as to whether Victoria Climbie had been trafficked. Having met her parents I find it hard to believe. But there definitely is a trade in trafficked children and I will be setting up some meetings (hopefully) with someone who can get into that community and help the police. Anyway – a very interesting briefing – and hopefully very useful.

Anonymous job applications – ending discrimination

2009-06-23T22:12:00.005+01:00

I have blogged several times about my idea to make use of anonymous job applications - so as to end the subliminal discrimination that creeps in with some applications being discarded because of the names on them.

I floated my idea during the Second Reading of the Equality Bill and it caused quite a hoo ha. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development waded in to support the idea – albeit they didn’t think it should be mandatory. Some Human Resource departments were less happy and thought it a stupid idea. Well – it will be interesting to see what they say in response to the evidence that's now been gathered.

Because - when I spoke to my amendment on anonymous job applications in the Committee Stage of the Equality Bill, I was absolutely thrilled with the Solicitor General’s response:

The Solicitor-General: That is a valid point and perhaps what we ought to do is experiment, which is what we are seeking to do in that the Department for Work and Pensions [DWP] has carried out a CV research exercise. Two carefully matched applications or CVs with names recognised as having different ethnicities have been submitted in response to the same advertised vacancies to see whether employers make different decisions depending on the names in the CVs. That research will be reported in the summer—I am sorry that I do not have an answer now, having tantalisingly mentioned the subject. The initial indications are that there is significant discrimination, so more work needs to be done to find an appropriate solution.

So – initial findings are of significant discrimination. And whilst it is clearly early days and the DWP is going to do more work – it seems clear to me that - first - those who argued there isn't a problem which needs fixing in particular need to look very closely at what the DWP has been finding, and second - here is a simple proposal which costs business nothing but could actually deliver enormous benefits in removing discrimination in the job market.

Removing such discrimination is not only important in itself - but by providing people with equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up all sorts of other knock-on benefits in terms of social cohesion and economic efficiency, which we all benefit from.

So once we see what the rest of the research shows - I'm hopeful that we will have a proposal that is easy, not burdensome and brings major benefits - and that of course the Government will in its wisdom decide to adopt it!

I trust that the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) will also step up to the plate and advocate anonymous job applications - and I will be writing to them as soon as I get a minute to rub together.

Speaker spoke to me

2009-06-23T22:08:00.002+01:00

Well – it was such an exciting day yesterday. It’s hard to explain – but the potential for change was thick in the air.

Just before the announcement of the result - as John Bercow was standing talking to me – I did suggest that it would be symbolic if he refused the pantomime tradition of having to be ‘dragged’ to the Speaker’s Chair. John said that the really important stuff was management of business, fairness etc – but I said I thought symbolism was quite important too, and if the very first thing he had done would have been to depart from tradition – that would have sent a signal.

I bet he would have done it too – if I hadn’t suggested it literally a minute before the announcement – as he seems to me to be serious about change. I look forward to what comes next!

Cometh the hour .... we shall see. Even in my short time in Parliament I have seen people desperate for one role or another – and when they have got it, they have found their dreams turned to dust because they couldn’t deliver. Ming Campbell found leadership was not the same as revered Foreign Affairs spokesperson. Gordon Brown – brooder for a decade – must wonder why and how it could all go so wrong.

So – hello Speaker Bercow. I wish you well – and like all jobs at this level – it’s what you make of it! Good luck.

Why we need more workers in the boardroom

2009-06-23T08:58:00.000+01:00

Cross-posted from Liberal Conspiracy:

Trying to put the pieces of the economy and our financial system back together again, it is clear that one of the underlying problems has been the vulnerability of many institutions to lop-sided incentives.

We’ve seen it as its most obvious with dealers - who can run big risks, retire very rich very young - and not have to worry about the long-term consequences, because they’ve long since left the scene. Another example has been in the boardroom - huge bonuses in the good times, and if it goes wrong? A nice little pay off and pension pot.

So how do we even out the score - especially in those institutions deemed too big or too crucial to be allowed to fail, which immediately sets up all sorts of risks of one-way bets?

Part of it is about control of the bonus culture. Part of it is about better management and identification of risk. Part of it is about getting remuneration committees to get external advice - rather than relying on the cosy arrangements of internal advice, which means it’s far too easy to have a situation of “you talk up my pay, I’ll talk up yours”.

Yet there is one group who really can see at first hand the ups and the downs of risk taking - and that is the ordinary workforce. It’s these people who suffer real financial hardship when risks fail to come off - but can also see in their job security (and - though not as often as perhaps should be the case - in their own pay packets too) the benefits when things do go well.

Having a stronger voice from the workforce in the senior decision making would be a vital safeguard in helping to control the risks firms run - because some of the people who really do suffer when the risks go wrong will be making the decisions, not just those largely on a one-way bet.

As an added bonus - recruiting some directors from the workforce would also add some much needed diversity to the make-up of company boards.

Diversity is about more than just “let’s add one middle-class white woman to a board of middle-class white men”. It’s about having a diverse set of experiences and knowledge and outlooks and instincts. That brings business benefits which some of those boards that collapsed in single-minded, risk-loving groupthink could have hugely benefited from.

That’s win, win, win for everyone.

Stroud Green parking survey

2009-06-23T07:24:00.000+01:00

My Lib Dem council colleagues from Stroud Green ward (Ed Butcher, Laura Edge and Richard Wilson) have launched their parking survey on the internet to gain further views from local residents.

They'd already begun a door-to-door survey in response to news that Haringey Council were delaying plans to review the Finsbury Park Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) until at least 2010. Curses on the dreaded Haringey Council - can they do nothing right? When you go door-to-door, not everyone is in etc, so hopefully this online survey will reach out further

If you'd like to take part in the survey, go to http://survey.libdems.org.uk/take/611.

Great Ormond Street Hospital - senior management must take responsibility over Baby Peter

2009-06-22T11:21:00.003+01:00

So - Dr Al-Sayyat - the doctor who famously failed to diagnose Baby Peter's broken back and broken ribs - is suing Great Ormond Street Hospital over her dismissal.

For all the criticism over her behaviour, that shouldn't let Great Ormond Street off the hook. As far as I can tell Great Ormond Street’s management has a lot of responsibility for the hospital’s failings during the Baby P tragedy.

Yes, it was Dr Al-Sayyat who saw Baby Peter, failed to spot major injuries and was then dismissed following an investigation. But just as with Sharon Shoesmith - who wasn't the actual front social worker visiting the house but paid the proper price for overseeing a system that failed so badly – so the senior people in charge at Great Ormond Street should have to take responsibility for a system that failed so badly.

Jane Collins (CEO), Dr Elliman (designated safeguarding doctor) and Jane Elias (senior management) are the key people at Great Ormond Street, who are commissioned by Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) to be responsible for running the children's health service for Haringey.

The Evening Standard recently published a damning letter from four senior paediatricians to Elliman and Elias over desperately serious concerns about the safety of children at risk in the borough. Moreover, they say in their letter that their concerns are being ignored by management. And when the letter was published – Jane Collins went on TV and rather than facing up to the issue and taking action, she dodged around.

So – there is still a job to be done to ensure that the senior management at Great Ormond Street are properly held to account.

Between 2006 and 2008 out of four senior paediatricians, two resigned, one was off sick and one was on special leave. That left the staffing at Great Ormond Street's services to Haringey's children at danger level. And I only got those figures after digging and digging to find out why it was a locum doctor – Dr Al-Sayyat – who had looked at Baby Peter.

Those responsible for there being dangerously low staffing levels in such a vital service need to pay the same price as those in Haringey Council did for their part in Baby Peter's tragic death.

Speaker speak to me!

2009-06-22T08:08:00.003+01:00

I am a floating voter in today's election of a new Speaker. I just got back from doing BBC Breakfast talking about same. I am certain I want someone who understands the game is up - someone who can walk the establishment into the light of the modern era. I want an end to stupid traditions from the absurdity of the new Speaker having to be dragged to the Chair - sheer pantomime -to the use of arcane forms of address in the Chamber. I want an end to partisan speakership. I want someone who knows that the only way to save Parliament is to break the chains that bind us.

The interviewer this morning said to me that I was a reformer so why hadn't I put myself forward given I had signed the old Speaker's death warrant. Well - outside of the fact I would almost certainly fall asleep in the Chair - I only entered in 2005 and you need to command respect across the House (and that takes a little longer) and I am a campaigning and doing MP - the real problem with a reformer per se is that it will take a traditionalist who has seen the light and understands what needs to be done to take that establishment body forward. Anyway - the Norman Bakers of this world who really could take the agenda forward - didn't put themselves in the frame.

So - I will listen to the hustings and see what each candidate offers. I couldn't give a fig which party they come from - as the person who gets my vote will genuinely have to put partisanship behind. And then I will give my vote to the person who persuades me that they really understand what has happened and the game is up, the gentlemen's club is no longer - and it's time for change. Yes we can!

A brighter future for asylum seekers

2009-06-21T16:01:00.002+01:00

Met this week with Brighter Futures - a group of young asylum seekers fighting for the right to be able to work and/or continue their education when their initial leave to stay runs out - and whilst they wait for the Home Office to process their applications.

Our bloody Home Office can take years and years and years. And imagine - you have come here from a war torn hell - to safety, to school - and then nothing. You are in limbo - not allowed to work or go to college while you wait on the Home Office's pleasure. It is just a terrible thing to make a young person wait endlessly, barring them virtually from a place in the normal community and keeping them endlessly in suspended animation. I should think it leads to depression, isolation and misery. And how deeply ironic that when we have asylum seekers wanting to work and contribute to the community they are living in - the Home Office is stopping it happen.

However, the three who came to see me were bright as buttons. I will be writing to the Minister asap because all they need - literally all they need - is a letter from the Home Office stating that they have the right to work (which they do - but no employer will employ them without their official status papers - which they don't have whilst waiting for the new right to stay to come through). If the Home Office just sent out an official letter on receipt of every application from a young asylum seeker who is applying to get their adult status saying to any employer or college that the young person has applied and that this letter should be taken as evidence of their legality to work. That is all they need.

So bloody simple.

The 9th and 10th sittings of the Equality Bill Committee

2009-06-20T17:17:00.003+01:00

The 9th and 10th sittings of the Equality Bill Committee

We kicked off with a debate on amendments to do with 'reasonable adjustment' for people with disabilities. My proposals were around making it crystal clear that a 'reasonable adjustment' would not just be cosmetic. So - for instance - if a person in a wheelchair couldn't get into a bank because of steps what would a ‘reasonable adjustment’ be? Perhaps a bank might try to argue that it could just install a bell so that the person could ring and get someone to come outside to do business on the steps of the bank with the person. But the real answer to deliver an equal outcome would be a ramp (or similar access) - obviously - so that the person with disabilities could have the same ability to enter the bank as someone without such a disability.

Although the argument back was that it was clear that a bell would not be 'reasonable' - and so no change in the Bill was needed - the Equality and Human Rights Commission supported the amendment, believing it to be a necessary change in the Bill. The amendment would have the twin benefits of consistency and clarity of approach. It would make it clear in the Bill that, for example, a service should, wherever possible, be provided to a disabled person in the same way as for a non-disabled person.

We then had a debate about frequency - which I thought was also a valid point. If something only happened once a year - then it would not be 'reasonable' to have to alter buildings etc to accommodate something that infrequent. However, if it was daily, weekly etc - then the same adjustment that would be needed would be 'reasonable' because the frequency made it so.

We progressed to my Lib Dem colleagues’ amendments around harassment and sexual orientation, which were argued very extensively. One of the key issues here is around the fact that lots of kids get bullied in school because they are gay or look gay or act gay - whether gay or not. Now the Government is seeking to exclude the protected characteristic of sexual orientation from harassment. We are arguing that we need sexual orientation to receive the protection from discrimination that the Bill provides. Can't for the life of me understand why the Government wants to remove that protection from such a vulnerable group.

Evan Harris (Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon) put the point that there is a real problem in the amount of homophobic bullying that takes place in schools. It is totally unacceptable for there to be no legal protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. If that protection is there - then it would focus the minds of governing bodies of schools - whether faith schools or ordinary schools - on the fact that they have a legal obligation to protect vulnerable pupils.

The Minister seemed not to be worried about homophobic bullying in schools - and followed her brief (supplied by civil servants), which basically said that she was not minded to accept the amendment. This one seems another one that the Government has just got completely wrong.

Progressing - John Mason (SNP) put an amendment which was basically aimed at supporting someone's religious beliefs and allowing for conscience in deciding whether someone as part of their job had to carry out a duty which was against their religious belief. You probably remember the Islington Registrar who refused to marry gay couples – i.e. perform civil partnerships. It's that type of thing. John Mason's argument was that the world was a big enough place to allow people to abide by their religious beliefs and conscience and employers could work around that.

I totally disagree. So - I popped up and said:

“This is a difficult area, and we are trying to get the balance right, but as discrimination law has advanced so far as to bring into play factors that did not exist before, it is important that we get it right. That extends to a whole range of issues. There might be people who do not wish to police a gay march, or firemen who will not attend certain incidents. On the execution of public duty, it is important that we make it clear here and now that carrying out public services cannot be a matter of conscience in the way that the Honourable Gentleman might wish. That is not signalling against a genuinely held conviction or people’s conscience; it is a necessity in the modern age. People with such convictions might ultimately make different choices about their careers.”

In the delivery of public services - you have to do the job and if there are elements of the job that you cannot do in all conscience - then it isn't the job for you.

The next main barney was over 'age discrimination' as people under 18 are to be exempted from the protection afforded against age discrimination in the Bill. I argued the case - supported by the Young Equals lobby group - that we need to include young people in the protection. Obviously there are age related issues that need to be dealt with - children of different ages and children and adults are different in capability and understanding - and that needs to be distinguished in the Bill. But that shouldn’t be an excuse to allow plain discrimination. But Vera Baird wasn't having it.

Another big issue next - the blanket ban on gay men from giving blood donations. My argument is that individuals should be banned according to their actual behaviour, not according to crude categories.

Currently there would be a lifetime ban on a gay man who had had protected sex once. There is no equivalent on a straight man - who may have had more partners. So to me the argument is clear – judgements should be based on people’s actual behaviour and the risks that arise from that. Stonewall agree with me and recently the Anthony Nolan bone marrow transplant trust removed their ban on gay donors. Other countries have a risk-based approach.

But in response the Government just quoted the NHS leaflet on blood supply. They weren’t even really prepared to listen or consider the unfairness and inequality of a blanket ban – especially disappointing as what it does is stop people who want to, and can, help their fellow citizens who are in need.

And whilst we are on the subject - the worst ever risk to the blood supply came from this Labour Government. They continued to allow haemophiliacs to receive contaminated treatment long after they knew it was contaminated. Consequently, haemophiliacs have been exposed to, infected and killed by this Government's refusal to ensure the safety of blood donations. They have been contaminated with HIV AIDS, Hepatitis C and human variant CJD. Can you imagine the cruelty of their last tragic intransigence on the contaminated blood - in that they moved under 16 year olds to safe treatments (chemically produced - not from blood supply) but made any older males continue to use the contaminated blood. It's the Government who are the biggest risk to anyone who needs blood - not gay men! As you can see - I get very heated and angry on that one.

But on to another interesting ding dong – this time between me and the Tories. I was arguing that the armed forces shouldn't be able to be exempt from the Bill when looking at combat effectiveness. The Bill allows them to say to someone for reasons of age, disability, sex and gender reassignment, that they may not serve on the front line.

My argument is again that this should not be blanket - but that it should be according to capability and therefore you can't just say a woman can't do or someone who is transgender cannot fight for example. Goodness knows – as with blood donors, we are told often enough that there aren’t enough people coming forward. Of course – choose who should serve in what role based on ability and capacity – but not on crude categorisation.

And there is a very, very exciting bit to come - but I will post that separately!

House authorities get my expenses record wrong

2009-06-20T17:07:00.004+01:00

So - the House of Commons Commission stuffs up, puts me on a list of MPs who have had to pay back monies. I get an email from the Telegraph almost immediately asking me to clarify the repayment! Having not had to pay back anything because I haven't done anything wrong (and the Telegraph should know as they crawled over my expenses early in the scandal and declared me a 'saint'), I was furious.

What happened was that a reimbursement from a supplier got included for some reason in the list of MPs paying back expense claims. The House authorities apologised, said they had made an error and would remove me from the list and send me an email confirming their error.

I emailed the 'clarification' to the Telegraph and they emailed back wishing me a good weekend. Phew - though all sorted too late to stop the mistake appearing in print in The Times. But at least The Telegraph checked and didn't run the wrong story!

When you are tall enough to see the top button on the till - then you can serve

2009-06-19T13:21:00.000+01:00

Well what do you know? This old film about the origins of Wood Green High Road was sent to me http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74415

It brought back loads of memories as my aunt had a net curtain shop at the Turnpike Lane end of Wood Green High Road. My mother would often leave me there on a Saturday morning whilst she had to go to work. No 7 it was I think - Taylors of Wood Green.

I used to love it. High counters, bolts of lacy material - and in the back I was allowed to play all morning. My ambition was, as I grew, to be able to serve in the shop. I remember my Aunty Sadie saying, "When you are tall enough to see the top button on the till - then you can serve".

By the time I grew tall enough to have made that a reality, I was busy with my next ambition - to be an actress. Ironic really - as they do say politics is show biz for ugly people! But many happy memories revived by the film - all so long ago.

Don't believe everything you read in the Guardian!

2009-06-19T08:11:00.000+01:00

Well - just shows the Guardian makes wrong assumptions. I see they have me down for being very modest in not claiming the £400 per month that MPs are 'allowed' to claim for food and says that I claimed a very modest five quid for a pasta bake or something. I have news for the Guardian - I have never claimed a penny for food - ever - from Parliament. All the food receipts are for my interns who get travel and lunch expenses. So - don't believe everything you read in the Guardian!

Equality Bill continues through Parliament

2009-06-18T22:00:00.004+01:00

So – Tuesday’s two sessions in Bill Committee on the Equality Bill ran about seven hours in two dollops. The key wrangles of the morning were as follows.

The Bill has provisions about discrimination against people on the grounds of disability, but that requires a definition as to at what point something is permanent enough or lasting long enough for these provisions to kick in. Having a broken leg is very different from losing permanent use of your leg for example. The Bill currently uses the phrase ‘long term’ - which means for 12 months or more. If an impairment is long term then an employer has to take reasonable steps to adapt to that.

So the argument around this in terms of employment is around removing the words ‘long term’ because if the impairment is something like depression – it may come and go. The argument went back and forth for some time over whether something was ‘likely’ to reoccur and/or liable to reoccur. The Minister felt they meant exactly the same and brought in dictionary definitions.

However, the Tories agreed with us that the issue of a fluctuating condition was important and they centred their argument specifically on depression. However, the Minister was not having it and indicated that the Government would not accept our amendment. We withdrew our amendment.

Next on the agenda was an amendment from backbench Tory MP Tim Boswell, who has a very good track record on human rights and gender issues and who had supported me in my efforts last week to get the Government to change one of the protected characteristics (those groups that are protected from discrimination under this Bill). Currently this protected characteristic is termed ‘gender reassignment’ in the Bill and we want this changed to ‘gender identity’. The problem is that 'reassignment' deals with those who live in another gender to their birth gender and who may or may not have had medical or pharmaceutical input – or those ‘proposing’ to do so. Tim Boswell’s attempt here is to widen the coverage by substituting the word ‘proposing’ with ‘considering’ the process of changing gender or living as another gender. Once again the Minister threw it out arguing until she was blue in the face that the wording in the Bill covered the whole gender spectrum. It doesn’t. She is wrong on this – and I really don’t understand why she sets her face so determinedly against this change which would just broaden the definition to encompass those who have no intention of living in another gender but who perhaps are not identifiably male of female. Nor does it cover those who cross-dress – who are not considering change on any permanent basis. So little is known about this very small group of people – and my fear is that the civil servants and lawyers preparing the Minister’s brief for this simply do not comprehend. It feels as if they can only deal with black and white – whilst the reality is that in terms of those with gender issues about 10% of that group can be classified in terms that the Government wants to give protection to – but the rest will undoubtedly face discrimination, intimidation and humiliation.

One of the other protected characteristics is 'marriage and civil partnership'. My next amendment was to test why these two types of relationship got the protection of the Bill but cohabiting couples or those who are single are not. If the intention of this characteristic is to stop discrimination on grounds of your relationship status - then why only marriage and civil partnerships? Well the answer from the Minister boiled down to not being able to find any evidence of discrimination against cohabiting couples or singles where there was a little (but not very much) evidence that married couples and civil partnership couples did suffer discrimination.

Then there was the longest wrangle over religion and sexual orientation. It was so long - I can only describe it thus. Basically those of religious faith appear to want to be able to employ people who they think hold their values and beliefs. Obviously it is OK to discriminate in employment if the job is proselytising - i.e. it is obvious that if you are employing a Catholic priest they need to be Catholic. But it shouldn't be ok to, say, discriminate against a caretaker couple in the same way. Also - it was clear from the argument that there is a suspicion that the religious lobby do not want homosexuals in their employ because they believe that homosexuality - or more accurately gay sex - is wrong. Well - that's the basic debate!

In the afternoon session I moved an amendment which basically argues that you shouldn't be confined to one discrimination when taking action. It is possible that someone could be discriminated against racially because they were black and also sexually because they were female. You get the idea. There is often multiple discrimination and people should be able to bring a complaint or claim on multiple grounds. The Government is consulting on this (again - after two years of consulting already) and is minded to allow two protected characteristics but not more. We argued a bit as I felt that it shouldn't be about business finding it difficult to deal with the complexity of multiple discrimination - but about justice. And if the discrimination was based on any number of issues - so should follow the ability to take action. You shouldn't be able to get away with discrimination on one ground just because you're also discriminating on other grounds!

One success of the day was the Government agreeing to our amendment 133, which replaced some really confusing wording around the asymmetry of disability discrimination. I know - it sounds like gobbledygook - but I'll try. All discrimination law stops us treating people differently because of any of the protected characteristics - race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc. But with disability - it is quite different. The law allows us to treat someone who is disabled more favourably because only by doing so will they achieve equality with others. For example I would provide a ramp for someone in a wheelchair so they could enter a public building. I would thus treat them more favourabley to enable them to have equal access to someone who is able bodied. This is called the asymmetry of disability discrimination. And the Government accepted that the wording in the Bill was confusing.

Our amendment said basically leave out the Government's wording and substitute with this:
'If the protected characteristic is disability, nothing in this section shall be taken to prohibit more favourable treatment of a disabled person on the grounds of a disabled person's disability'.

Yes - and that is the understandable and better version! Bet you can't wait for the next sitting.

Congratulations Fiyaz Mughal

2009-06-14T18:36:00.001+01:00

News reached me late - but fabulous news! My Liberal Democrat councillor colleague Fiyaz Mughal has been awarded an OBE. It is awarded to him for services to the voluntary sector, including his work as director of Faith Matters. Congratulations Fiyaz. Very well deserved!

Crouch End lap dancing application returns

2009-06-14T18:15:00.002+01:00

I had hoped that the applicants for a lap dancing club in the middle of Crouch End would take the hint - that local people didn't want them there and that they would disappear forever with their tail between their legs.

The message from the campaign was quite clear: lap off! But they haven't. They're back!

So - the Lib Dems are pushing for there to be wide, wide consultation on this new application and for the views of residents to be heard loud and clear.

Indeed, the original application was withdrawn in the spring after really fierce local opposition from residents with their 'Lapoff!' campaign, helped by local Liberal Democrats.

Cllr Dave Winskill (Crouch End) has requested that Haringey Council organise a public planning forum to give local residents a real chance to raise their concerns about this fresh application.

We don't know if Haringey will agree to that - but in the meantime we have until the end of June to object. The final planning decision is likely to be taken by 30th July. The Music Palace (which is the location) has to get both planning and licensing to be allowed to run their lap dance club.

Residents can comment on the application by going to the Haringey website and entering reference: HGY/2009/0953, or by contacting me on lynne@lynnefeatherstone.org or 020 8340 5459.

For more about the issues around the site of the application - and why it isn't suitable - see my earlier YouTube clip:

The Westminster Hour tonight

2009-06-14T12:06:00.002+01:00

I'm on The Westminster Hour tonight (Sunday): Radio 4, 10pm. Don't yet know what will be up for discussion - but if you've got any views on the political events of the moment, let me know.

If you miss the show you'll be able to listen again on their website.

Following the Equality Bill through Parliament

2009-06-13T19:56:00.000+01:00

OK - so am going to try and blog the process of legislation through the Equality Bill. To date - we have had the First Reading of the Bill (a formality) and then the Second Reading , which happens in the chamber of the House of Commons and where the Bill overall is debated. We have had 'evidence' sessions where witnesses (groups with particular interest in the Bill) give their views on parts of the Bill and we get to questions them. And now we have entered the Committee Stage where we (a smaller group of MPs) scrutinise the legislation line by line.

If this gets too long-winded or onerous I will cease - but as I write so often about local issues - thought it might interest some to see the Parliamentary process at work.

The Bill is gone through in order and we, the Tories and the Government, table amendments to the Bill and some are selected each session of the Committee for.

The key issues that came up in the first sessions were:

- the “socio-economic duty”: this would be a new duty on, for example, local councils to consider the impact of their decisions and spending on the gap between rich and poor, and to try to reduce these socio-economic divides where possible.
- which bodies should be covered by this new duty: it would apply to parts of ‘the state’ but how narrowly or broadly should the net be cast?
- the “protected characteristics" – that is, those categories which would be protected by this Bill from discrimination, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The socio-economic duty is something that the Government bunged in at the last minute. All parties believe narrowing the socio-economic gap is important - but the Tories feel it shouldn't be in this particular Bill. We Liberal Democrats think it is one of the greatest and most intractable of inequalities - but that this duty is somewhat tokenistic. We have no objection to the good it might do - but believe it far too weak to really deliver change.

When we got to debating the Government's list of authorities that would come under this duty, the Government was disposed to accept/look at two of my amendments which question why the Greater London Authority bodies like the Fire Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London were excluded when they are clearly making strategic decisions that can affect the socio-economic status. Ditto for fire authorities across the country.

The ‘form’ for amendments is that even if the Government agrees with them, they don’t support them at the Committee Stage, but instead say they will introduce similar amendments of their own at the subsequent Report Stage. Sometimes this can be for good reasons (they can get their lawyers to pour over the wording to ensure it’s just right) but sometimes also there is a touch of “if it hasn’t got our name on it, we won’t support it” about it all.

Anyway – the Government said they will bring back their own amendments on these issues, so it looks as if the changes I was asking for will end up in the Bill – hurrah!

What would it mean in practice? Well, consider the example of a fire authority making decisions about its fire prevention efforts. The duty would require them to consider the different risks in areas arising from how deprived they are – for example, in poorer areas there may be fewer firm alarms, buildings may be less fireproof, more use of paraffin heaters etc. If it then turns out some areas are therefore at greater risk of fires and death from fires – then they’d have to take this into account when planning their fire prevention work.

Then we debated the list of 'protected characteristics' such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc – sometimes called the 'equality strands'. We (Liberal Democrats) were proposing amendments to stop discrimination on the grounds of someone’s caste, their genetic make-up and family history, disadvantaged socio-economic status, paternity (discrimination on grounds of maternity or pregnancy is already covered, but not paternity) and on grounds of being a carer (people who have caring responsibilities are often discriminated against, for example by an employer who won't take them on in case their caring responsibilities interfere with their work). And then there was the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' - which turned into a bit of an argy bargy.

All were tossed aside by the Minister (Vera Baird) with varying degrees of sympathy. Socio-economic disadvantage got short shrift as the Government couldn't see how that could be measured - but I don't see why given they can quantify poverty in terms of children who get free school dinners or the myriad measures of deprivation through which they give grants. We thought it would anchor the new socio-economic duty - as it is free floating and somewhat illogical without a strand.

They ummed and ahhed a bit about genetics as it clearly will be a problem down the line when the moratorium on insurance companies expires in 2014. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to use genetic information to guide their policies – so they can’t select some people and charge their higher premiums because of their genes for example. The sense of fairness behind the moratorium means it’s been widely supported – but although the Bill is the chance to settle the matter, the Government didn’t seem moved to do anything.

On caste - they were pretty unsympathetic - just saying they had tried to get evidence of discrimination because of caste but the organisations they had gone to (Hindu and Sikh) had said they were very against legal steps to outlaw caste-based discrimination and didn’t have evidence that it was needed. But I can't help thinking that those who support a caste system might not want to volunteer evidence so that we can outlaw it. On carers - they were more sympathetic but didn't feel it was necessary ultimately and that they would be covered by 'association' to someone who was disabled, old etc.

The protected characteristic currently in the list as 'gender reassignment' we wanted changed to 'gender identity'. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender - where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to - at the other end of the scale - gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around 'reassignment' are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their 'characteristic' is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that 'reassignment' wasn't medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender - and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they 'change' gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) - but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don't present as male or female identifiably.

Anyway - we will return to that issue at Report Stage, I hope, as it is very important and I didn't feel that the Minister really got it.

Enough for now!

Do you have enough time to cross the road?

2009-06-12T07:49:00.001+01:00

I've often had to put a shifty on when crossing the road at the bottom of Muswell Hill. There hardly seems to be time to make it across. Well - it's not my imagination - the lights really are not giving enough time to make it safely.

There are 26 major pedestrian crossings in Haringey in breach of national safety guidelines updated in 2005, including the signals at the bottom of Muswell Hill where it meets Priory Road and Park Road, and also the signals where Wightman Road, Hornsey Park Road and Turnpike Lane meet.

I'm lucky - I can still put a shifty on when needed - but older people, people with mobility difficulties and those with babies and young children may not be able to rush across.

It isn't rocket science and should be easy to fix - so come on Transport for London!

For more on the story, see this week's Journal coverage.

Gordon Brown fails first test!

2009-06-10T10:55:00.003+01:00

I was listening to LBC on my way in - and my way in took longer than usual because Bob Crow was muscle flexing seemingly just to see if they still worked. Not that well - judging from the reluctance of the very decent staff on the Underground who went to work anyway and did not uniformly abandon Londoners. Three cheers for them!

Anyway - point is - discussion was on the investigation by the man appointed by No 10 to investigate Ministers misdoings etc to look into the case of Shahid Malik, Minster in the Justice Department who had to step down when it was brought into question whether he had paid a market rent on his three bedroom house in Dewsbury. Mr Malik did step down - but always protested his innocence.

Philip Mawer, who investigated the alleged transgressions and breaking of the Minsterial Code, has found Mr Malik did not break the Ministerial Code. Now James O'Brien, presenting said program, made an excellent point. Publish Mr Mawer's report. If Shahid is innocent - and we must presume he is if the report says so - then let us see the evidence and how the investigation was carried out and what it looked into.

Old Gordon has been blubbing all over the TV that the old order of secrecy and the Gentlemen's Club is dead. But if they don't publish - then it's long live the old order and business as usual.

How could he fail this first test of the new way? James O'Brien is spot on - we need to see for ourselves because we no longer trust. It's sad - but we must be shown the proof.

It's not fair on Shahid either - as if they don't publish - he looks guilty even though he has been proclaimed innocent. And the reason that No 10 and the Justice Department gave James O'Brien for not publishing was 'privacy'! I kid you not. As if they couldn't redact any really personal and private stuff.

So - no change there! And this is deadly serious because we do need to prove to the British people that we have changed, that MP's, Ministers etc cannot get away with it and must live and die by the same rules as the rest of the population. In fact, until we have earned back trust - we will just have to keep on proving ourselves and proving ourselves - over and over again.

Gordon - publish or be damned! Well - you're already damned - but the rest of us who want to feel proud again of serving as MPs want real change. You have to publish. You have to demonstrate that the words of sorrow and contrition and change pouring out of your mouth were not just words.

And as for Shahid - he is now back in the fold as Communities Minister (I think) - and surely he deserves to be exhonerated publicly with the findings of the report and not begin his new ministership (if that's a word) with any question marks over his past expenses.

Judging dogs

2009-06-10T07:53:00.001+01:00

Just a little note to say I will be judging the dog competition at Highgate's "Fair in the Square" which will take place in historic Pond Square, London N6, on Saturday, June 13th from 12.30pm to 5.30pm. I hope the sun shines - and that everyone comes and has a good time. And no jokes about dogs please!

Euro election results in Haringey

2009-06-08T21:58:00.003+01:00

Busy day with the Equalities Bill in Parliament, so here's our press release:

Lib Dems main Euro-winners, with biggest vote increase
Lowest ever vote share for Labour in borough election
Poll shock, as local Tories pushed into fourth place

The Liberal Democrats were the main winners in the European elections in Haringey last night. The party added 4.7 per cent to its tally and dramatically closed the gap on Haringey Labour, whose vote slumped to its lowest ever share in a borough-wide election.

It was also a night of disaster for the local Tories, who shocked observers by slumping into fourth place, behind the Green Party.

Lib Dem Leader Robert Gorrie comments,

“I am delighted with the result, and I would like to thank everyone in Haringey who responded to the Lib Dems’ positive message on Europe. These results show we are in a neck-and-neck battle with Labour for control of Haringey Council. For the Tories, fourth place is yet another nail in their coffin, as local people know it is only the Lib Dems that can bring an end to 40 years of Labour rule here.”

Results:

Labour – 14,093 (28.8% - down 4.1%)
Lib Dems – 11,550 (23.6% - up 4.7%)
Greens – 8,528 (17.4% - up 3.4%)
Cons – 7,396 (15.1%, down 0.5%)
Others – 7,392 (15.1% - down 3.5%)