lord of the blog

« October 2003 | Main | December 2003 »

Monday, November 24, 2003

Mary Seacole

I launched the Mary Seacole Memorial Campaign in the House of Commons today. Sadly, many British people are unaware of the contribution made by ethnic minorities throughout British history and especially during the period of industrial revolution and empire.
Mary Seacole was a Jamaican nurse who provided medical services to British troops in the Crimean war between 1854 and 1857. In mid Victorian Britain she became a household name as famous as Florence Nightingale. She had to make her own way to the Crimea and returned to Britain virtually penniless.
When word spread of her financial problems the regiments set up the Seacole Fund. All the main Army regiments and the Royal Navy were represented on the Committee and various members of the Royal Family were amongst the Patrons. Queen Victoria gave her support and the famous Times journalist William Howard Russell said "I trust that England will not forget one who nursed her sick,who sought out her wounded to aid and succour them, and who performed the last offices for some of her illustrious dead". Well, she wasn't forgotten then but she has been since and we need to put that right.
The campaign intends to raise money for a statue of Mary Seacole hopefully located in a high profile, central London position.
If you want to know more about Mary Seacole go to www.maryseacole.com or buy her autobiography Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in many lands. First published in 1857 it is a fascinating and enjoyable read. (From Falling Wall Press £8.95 but due to increase soon!)
Finally if you want to help or contribute in any way please contact me.

House of Lords reform

Picking up some of the points made to me about possible reforms for the House of Lords, there are two base points that I would make. Firstly with an unwritten constitution a fully elected Chamber would be strongly tempted to compete with the Commons and would also be dominated by political parties. This creates a real risk of it duplicating the Commons. Secondly a fully appointed Chamber risks being marginalised as a creature of the establishment (however we might define that!) and not legitimate enough.
That is why my preference is for a hybrid House,that is, part elected and part appointed. If the appointments are made through an independent appointments commission (as currently proposed) then the Prime Ministers patronage is greatly reduced. We would still have the advantage of appointing people with special skills or knowledge such as scientists. Philip Hunt suggested that we draw members on a random basis from the electoral role to serve not more then 5 years. It's attractive at first glance but my experience suggests that you really need to have some prior knowledge of how political systems work if you are to make an effective contribution.
So my preference lies in the elected part being drawn from the regions rather as Jackie D suggests and then topped up with appointed members and a limited number of political party nominations. It would be a slightly unusual struture but the British constitution has been unusual for a thousand years - so why not!
On this topic see also my original entry of 28th. October under the heading 'The joint committee on the'. (I invented this title when I was still a baby blogger! Now I'm a toddler blogger!)

Sunday, November 23, 2003

George Bush speech in London

I was intending to write about events in the House Of Commons last week including the Select Committee hearings on the proposed Supreme Court. I was also going to respond to some of the questions I received about House of Lords reform. Those issues will have to wait as the speech by George Bush and the bombs in Turkey need a response.
I claimed in my post on US/Middle East (7.11.03) that there are clear signs of new thinking in the US administration. The full text of the speech by George Bush is worth reading especially for those, like me, who were worried about his general comments following his election. (Try the Scotsman or CNN for the full text which was alas, missing from many of the papers who preferred to tell you what they thought he was saying rather then what he actually said).
The points in his speech that impressed me were his recognition that the UK, the US and other powers had for too long ignored corruption and the abuse of power in many Middle East countries because it was convenient to do so. That is an important admission. There was also a clear recognition that Israel's present policy was wrong and had to change. He repeated the statement not made by any previous US President that there had to be an independent Palestinian state. There were much clearer committments to international organisations but linked to the need for the UN to avoid repeating the mistakes of the League of Nations - a point on which I strongly agree. There was also a welcome and overdue recognition that force alone cannot overcome terrorism but justice and democracy are necessary too.
What matters now is that some of these ideas are put into practice and that is easier said then done. Persuading corrupt states to change without descending into chaos is not easy and yet it is vital if the Middle East is to achieve progress and prosperity for all its people.
UN reform is crucial. The big challenge is how to deal with states that abuse human rights on a massive scale and which have no judicial system to right the wrongs. It is always difficult to justify the use of force but I found it very difficult to justify not using force when Milosovic was killing Muslims and Croats in Bosnia and Kosova.
My views are strongly influenced by the waves of refugees I get in my constituency whenever one of these psychopathic killers take over a nation state. I've made the point before, that our present policy is similar to the way we use to deal with domestic violence. In the old days if a man beat his wife up in the street we could arrest him but if he did it at home we couldn't touch him because we regarded the house as his property. We do much the same in international relations because the UN was set up with similar assumptions about the nation state. So invade Kuwait and we act. Kill and maim your own people and we don't! We all know there is something wrong here even if it is difficult to come up with workable alternatives.
Finally the bombs in Turkey. The choice of targets by these terrorist groups is important. Bali was important because it had Westerners and Hindus in a Muslim state that is trying to democratise. Turkey was important because it is a secular state with a majority Muslim population and has made major reforms recently. Target the British Consulate and the HSBC bank at the time of the State visit of George Bush to Britain and you have a major coup.
I think this policy will be counter productive for the terrorists in the long run because I don't think it can win the hearts and minds of the Muslims it claims to speak for. There may well be justified anger in the Muslim world about some double standards in the West but there is also recognition of the achivements of industrialised democracies and a desire to achieve the same high standards of living in more open societies. So the idea that we can't have democracy in Iraq or that the people there don't welcome the removal of dictatorship or that Muslims will rally round these groups is I believe,profoundly wrong.
There will be more terrorist attacks. They didn't just start with the twin towers in New York.What we need is a determination to resolve the problems in the Middle East and to reform the UN. That's a big agenda but no bigger then that which faced my generation in creating the UN in 1945.

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

News international and sexual harassment - responses

The feedback on my exposure of sexual harassment and bullying at News International is interesting. Not for the first time I have found the media response to exposure of double standards within their own organisations to be very ambivalent. The Guardian did a good job as did the Independent and one or two other outlets. Parliamentary privilege gave media outlets protection although I don't think it was necessary. The papers in my possession demonstrate without any doubt that there were and maybe still are, significant problems at News International and probably other tabloid papers.
I have already had a few other cases brought to my attention but some are out of time to get legal redress. Others may or may not stand up but if anyone else out there does have specific information then I would be prepared to look at it and offer what advice I can.
I always find it very depressing that so many people warn me about "taking on the media". Phrases like "They will get you". Or "Watch out for your family" indicate that most people are afraid of the press. That saddens me as the press ought to be the peoples friend but all too often it is seen as threatening. Incidently I don't share the feeling of fear and I also have many good contacts in the media generally and find that most journalists I know are trustworthy and seeking to do an important job to the best of their ability. Sadly both politicians and jounalists are seen as untrustworthy and this is not good for democracy. I have frequently spoken and written on this subject so I wont repeat it all here but I do think change is possible and hopefully when I rattle the bars it helps change attitudes.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Media Watch

Thanks for the comments and other helpful information that has been sent to me. A free and strong press is essential in any society but when standards sink seriously low it is important to stand up and say so. It is the old question of who guards the guards?
So if anyone reading this does have additional information they want to send me either in confidence or otherwise please click on contact.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

News International and sexual harassment

I raised a point of order in the House of Commons today about press standards. It is an issue which has interested me over many years mainly because of my concern about the growing difficulty of getting news that is not heavily tainted with the opinions of the editor or owner. I have also been angered by the double standards around privacy issues although I have always resisted the temptation to have a law of privacy as it can restrict good investigative journalism. However, if the press consider it acceptable to trash peoples lives often on the basis of trivial stories about sexual relationships between consenting adults then they cannot be allowed to cover up much more serious cases of sexual harassment in their own organisations.

My point of order was on the following lines.

Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order because I am concerned about a letter I received from the editor of the Sun following my enquries about sexual harassment and bullying at News International. This letter was a thinly disguised attempt to warn me off.

I had received an unsolicited copy of a letter to News International's lawyers from a firm representing a victim of serious sexual harassment. The allegations had been made against a past editor of the Sun and a payment of around £500,000 was made with a condition of silence imposed on the victim.

As far as I am aware no proper disciplinary hearings took place and other senior staff appear to have colluded with what was by any standard extremely offensive and destructive behaviour. The police were not called when hate mail was being sent on News International stationery to the victim.

I do not know if either the offence or the settlement were reported to Rupert Murdoch although I think that would be likely. There was no attempt to deal with the underlying problem of sexual harassment and bullying, and my contacts tell me it was not an isolated case. The solicitor's letter tends to confirm that.

Mr. Speaker I have to raise this with you because after I had written to Les Hinton, Chief Executive of News International I received a letter from Rebekah Wade, editor of the Sun. The letter asked me how many complaints of sexual harassment had been made to me while Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party by PLP staff and by MP's staff. In fact I had received none. It is impossible to see this as anything other then a threat, as I had not approached any editors, only the Chief Executive's office. It must be a matter of serious concern when a major multi national media group uses its editors to threaten a Member of Parliament who is carrying out a legitimate enquiry into that group's employment practises.

As I am asking other employees who also suffered abuse to contact me or their lawyers it is important that editors and management understand that this House will not tolerate explicit or implicit threats against its Members when carrying out their proper duties.

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that MPs do have these duties and that they should be allowed to pursue them without threats or warnings of any type.

I am a strong defender of legitimate investigative journalism. The press cannot and should not expose others while covering up their own problems.

Friday, November 07, 2003

oops!

Oops! That last post on the US/Middle East went in unedited. No prizes for spotting grammar/spelling mistakes! I've got to read up on editing posts. Sorry! And I've asked Typepad if they are going to add a spell checker - they are!

US/Middle East

Confession! I've never been a great fan of George Bush and I don't regard him as the intellectual Tarzan of the Western world but whatever personal views I may have, he is the leader of the current great power.We Brits have to be a bit careful about criticising great powers as it's only 100 years since newspapers in the US, France and Germany were describing Britain as the greatest power ever and destined to rule for another 100 years. Twenty years later it all looked very different. Power is relative. Watch India, China and Brazil - all in the queue as great powers and catching up fast.
George Bush is also well able to learn - in politics you should never allow your prejudices to get in the way of reason. So why am I talking about him like this? Because his speech on democracy and the Middle East the other day was an interesting example of political movement in the US. The Arab press has been very suspicious of his speech and that's not suprising given the history of the West in the Middle East. I think the US is trying to move and that's not as easy in politics as people think mainly because of what you have said in the past and who and where your supporters are.
George Bush was admitting that the West's actions in the Middle East had for many years supported some pretty corrupt states. September 11th. and the link to Saudi Arabia confronted the US with the complex realities of the Middle East. I am not going to write about Iraq now though I hope to soon but the signs are that the US is now recognising the importance of encouraging more open Government and dealing with the crisis in Israel/Palestine. In politics it is great fun to knock your opponents but I also want to work for real change and if someone looks like changing in the direction I want then I'll suspend hostilities and work with them.
In the West we tend to have short memories about the Middle East. It wasn't just Western colonial and great power tactics that aggravated the problem it was also the history of the Turkish empire prior to World War One. There are echos of the past here and if you're interested, try reading Africa and the Victorians published in the 1960's but terrifyingly relevant. Around page 100 you will find Gladstone getting trapped in Egypt having broken the rebel army in one day - then all the subsequent Cabinet meetings were about how to create a democratic and lawful state there. They also agonised about asking the Turks to help but given their record Gladstone wasn't too keen. Recognise the symptoms? History never quite repeats itself however and there are good reasons for more optimism now. Watch this space!
Meanwhile many thanks for the help and advice on blogging - I'm still learning about links and things but I'll get there - I'm just a slow learner. Which is why I understand George!

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Baby Bonds (officially:Child Trust Fund)

Baby Bonds have been officially launched. I'm delighted. Not least because about ten years ago I proposed the idea but it wasn't taken up at the time. Never mind all good things come to those who wait! (well sometimes!). Anyway for those who don't know any child born on or after 1st.September 2002 will get a minimum of £250 (£500 for low income families) and they will get this without claiming - it goes via the child benefit system. The money goes into a protected account and can't be drawn before the child is 18. The Government will put in another lump sum at age 7 (the amount is not yet decided) and then friends and relatives can chip in so over the years it could become a useful sum.
It encourages saving and gives real help to those on low incomes who often have little or no capital at age 18. Cynics will say that it will all be spent on booze,drugs,sex or whatever! No doubt some of it will be but I believe the majority of young people will use it well. In any event, this is a good example of a Government taking a very constructive initiative.
Further details should be available on the Treasury web site. The initiative was launched by Ruth Kelly MP,Financial secretary at the Treasury.

Monday, November 03, 2003

Spain and Gibraltar

I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that a modern Europe would see the end of borders like that between Spain and Gibraltar. That can't be achieved however without consent and it seems to me the Spanish Government is incredibly clumsy when it comes to winning hearts and minds. The response of the Spanish Government to the arrival of a cruise ship with an outbreak of stomach upsets is to close the border and to to call the border "a fence"! So if you are a Gibraltan the way you read the message is that Spain over reacts and if you wanted to make propaganda out of it (and many there do) you would point out that so concerned are your suitors that they put you behind a fence when there is an illness around! Not too bright. Those of us who really do admire what the Spanish have achieved since Franco despair at such crass tactics. Those who want to continue the separation between Spain and Gibraltar will be dancing in the streets!