lord of the blog

« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Blogs

Thank you http://www.bloggers4labour.org  I didn't know I wasn't being dated! And I don't know how I became dated! Ignorance is bliss!

Meanwhile here on the Clive Soley MP blog site things are about to change. As soon as the election is declared I will have to drop my MP title but I will continue blogging for the election. After that - well, who knows!

Responses

Thanks for your interesting comments - I hadn't quite seen myself as Winston Churchill Ingrid and it's a bit difficult becoming Prime Minister when you are no longer an MP! Nice thought though!

Thanks for drawing my attention to the libel Dan. There is a tenant in this block who is using other people to wage a campaign against Notting Hill Housing Trust.

I went to visit the block after I got a very detailed letter of complaint from a tenant. In fact she hadn't written it. She was an asylum seeker who hardly spoke English. Most of the complaints were either exaggerated or being dealt with. She had signed a letter at someone else's request and without knowing what it said.

I did receive a letter and had a telephone conversation with this other woman who is alleged to have put the entry on Indymedia. She was very upset because she had been persuaded to sign a letter which was libelous about other people - but not me. I understand that this did result in her losing her job.

That was about a year ago and the name was spelt differently. As people usually know how there name is spelt I suspect this is in fact written by the tenant who is the author of other letters.

MP's occasionally get odd balls like this. The real problem here is whether the woman who is alleged to have written it really has. As for comments about me the old phrase about thick skins and politicians comes to mind!. I have a pretty good reputation with constituents and I have never had or am likely to have a reputation for racism.

In my experience Indymedia out does the worst of the tabloids. The trouble is that eventually people will sue or start arguing for the right to censor what is said on the internet. That would not be desirable in my view but maybe it is what Indymedia really wants! Who knows!

There are some sad people in this world.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Budget

Have a read of Gordon Brown's speech in the Budget statement of 16th March. It covers many of the achievments of this Government and any Labour supporter can be proud of our record. http://www.parliament.uk

Compare it to the Tory record and then decide if you really want to risk losing the most successful Labour government in history.

Responses

I hate to ask you this Peter but as Diane Abbott is always rubbishing her colleagues and the Government why should the constituents believe you when you "play up the Labour achievements"?

The future of my blog and decisions about my future political activity are now under review! I am seriously demob happy  - so watch this space!

Where next for our troops Dan? Well you could recognise the continuing good job including in places like Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan etc. Or don't these fit the theory? The world will continue to need intervention. The way we do it and the circumstances are important but if all the developed nations walk away from the world's problems then you won't see peace and prosperity in your lifetime.

Andrew Slaughter will answer your queries - I don't think a retiring MP should answer for their successor.

I note your comments Des and hope things got sorted out but don't vote for me because I'm not standing!

Dan, the point is that the Home Office do refuse to deal with the dodgy advisers/lawyers but you can't pass a law stopping people from going to the person of their choice especially if they are paying for them.

I think we are much better at getting good representations now but if you hear of bad ones you can write to: The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. http://www.oisc.gov.uk They are the regulators and also prosecute those operating outside the law but they always need more information. 

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Responses

Dan. Asylum seekers are not represented by anyone from the Home Office. They are represented either by solicitors or immigration advisers.

The Law Society is now quite good at dealing with companies that fall below standard.I had a series of meeting with the Law Society a while back to try and improve representations.

There is a real problem with immigration adviser's who are often unskilled and have taken very large sums of money for virtually no service. Asylum seekers go to them sometimes by personal recommendation and sometimes because its part of the illegal entry deal. One of my cases had £5000 taken off them for doing just one letter. If in doubt contact either the Law Society or the MP.

Peter. I just think you need to go through all our achievements. I understand your objections to issues like Iraq but what about all our other policies? The reason I refer back to previous Labour Governments is that they all left office being denounced by people on the Left who years later start remembering all the good things they did. the Attlee Government is a classic for this. Everyone is nostalgic for it now but at the time it was literally scorned by many on the Left. Feels familiar? It ought to!

Andrew, Dan, Simone and others on terrorism. I tried voting 'No' for about 15 years! I even resigned from the Front Bench on one occasion. The present legislation is not as bad as the 1970's and 80's but it is not good.

I do have some influence and my aim was to get a more considered approach to terrorist legislation. Judges are involved at all levels now but I don't regard that as sufficient. As I was saying in the debate, what matters is that we take our time to get this right and the process that Charles Clarke spelt out in great detail (see his last speech in Hansard on thursday 10th at 3.45pm column 1858 and onwards - it was actually Friday to any normal person but we are not normal in the House of commons! http://www.parliament.uk ) shows how we will revisit this in the next Parliament. Sadly I won't be able to take part - or not directly anyway. So ends 26 years of battles on terrorism!

We need the UN definition for future legislation and although I don't think the present temporary system will be 'chaotic' I do think it will be messy at first.

The Labour candidate replacing me is Andrew Slaughter, currently leader of Hammersmith Council.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Despard

Thanks to Russell Woodward on new information about the Despard's but there is no immediate link with Colonel Despard who,for those who have forgotten an earlier post, was sentenced to be hung,drawn and quartered for treason.

I did wonder if it was his son from his marriage to a Caribbean woman but the first name is different. As they were all army people there may be a connection somewhere along the line. I am not very knowledgeable on these things.

Responses

Thanks for the comments - both supportive and otherwise!

When the terrorism legislation first appeared I took the view that it was another undesirable law trying to deal with a difficult problem. So my aim throughout was to get a strong commitment to set up a process that could put the history of the last 30 years of bad legislation on terrorism behind us. I think I have achieved that.

I'm sorry Andrew feels let down but many other constituents feel differently. The mood would be even worse if there was to be a terrorist attack as in other countries.

Can I remind Peter Kenyon that this Labour Government has had more rebellions then any other. We are not as docile as past ones. it is also important to remember that all previous Labour Governments fell with far more intense and bitter divisions then we have had.

They also left office with higher levels of unemployment then they inherited. The Tories and the press know their history rather better then some of my critics on this site. They know the success of many of our policies which is why they don't focus on them. They need to create a feeling that Labour has failed and unfortunately they get unwitting support.

Beware of revisiting our history! And beware of a Tory and Liberal Party that suddenly reversed their position after more then 25 years of supporting the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Internment both of which were far worse then the control orders proposed by Charles Clarke. (See my various interventions and speeches in the current debate http://www.parliament.uk ).

Friday, March 11, 2005

Terrorism

Parliamentary debate 9.3.05

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with him; it is a question of not just the ability to review but, as he implies, the ability to review in an informed way. I think that the process I have put in place—three-monthly reports and an independent review—is exactly the vehicle by which it will be possible to obtain that informed review. On my right hon. Friend's idea about Privy Counsellors and a committee of that type, I pay respect today, as I have done in the past, to the extremely positive work of Lord Newton and his committee. I also pay tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee in reviewing such matters, which has been important in this and other areas. I can say to my right hon. Friend that I will certainly look at whether there are better ways to continue the review of this matter and consider what is the right way to proceed. The reason that I was and

9 Mar 2005 : Column 1594

am against the Lords amendment is that to specify a particular form of review, especially in light of the wide range of information we have at this stage, is overly prescriptive.

Mr. Soley: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. I certainly think that is better than a sunset clause. It is important that we recognise that for the past 20 or 30 years, none of us has been happy with the way we have legislated on terrorism. The measure we are discussing today is not as bad as some aspects of the old prevention of terrorism Acts and it is certainly not as bad as the internment Acts. I would very much welcome my right hon. Friend's going a step further to offer talks to the other parties—I know that he cannot commit future Governments—and they ought to respond positively in terms of the review and come forward with other suggestions as time goes by.

Mr. Clarke: I very, very much agree with my hon. Friend and would like to make three points in response to him. First, his first point is not sufficiently appreciated. It is a fact that we are giving greater priority to human rights and civil liberties in these procedures than in any previous type of such legislation. Secondly, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, when he led for the Labour Opposition on these matters before we came into office, dealt with the then Government in a universally positive and constructive way. He recognised his responsibility in opposition to deal with such matters responsibly. That is a positive example from which all parties in the House might usefully draw some lessons. Thirdly, I agree that after a general election it would be beneficial to hold conversations of the type that we were referring to. I do not specify a particular form, but with a Parliament stretching in front of us, to try to go back to the old days when Labour was in opposition and we had all-party agreement on such things might be a good way to proceed, and I am certainly ready to act to try to achieve that.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Terrorism

If you are interested in the continuing debate on terrorism and the problem of legislation then have a look at the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee transcripts of evidence.

Last Tuesday Lord Goldsmith gave evidence and the Tuesday before it was Lord Falkner. Go to http://www.parliament.uk and follow the committee tabs. We were questioning them on the current legislation and the Special Immigration Appeals Court.

Friday, March 04, 2005

Today in Parliament

The Today in Parliament programme at 11.30 tonight (Friday) on Radio 4 will include an interview with me on the role of the Chairman of the  Parliamentary Labour Party.

Unless they cut it for something more jazzy!

Draft Children Contact and Adoption Bill

I have spent the last two weeks chairing the Draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill Committee. This is a joint committee of MP’s and Lords. It has the job of considering the Bill in draft form and making recommendations for changes.

The Bill is important because it deals with the difficult question of how to help parents who have separated but can’t reach agreement on custody and access.

There are some basic points almost everyone agrees on. We all believe that it is best to reach agreement by negotiation or mediation. Courts should be a last resort. Most people accept that the child’s needs come first but that it is always desirable for both parents to have access as long as this does not harm the child.

The difficult areas are how to get couples involved in mediation if one or both refuse to co-operate. What is to be done when one parent constantly undermines attempts to make an agreed settlement work? For example the parent with custody may fail to be at home when the other one comes to collect the child. Or the reverse may happen and the parent and child wait at home for a visit that never materialises.

We have been taking evidence this week from judges and groups like the NSPCC and Families Need Fathers. The process of taking evidence on draft Bills gives a good opportunity for people involved to get their views heard prior to legislation.

One of the most contentious issues involved is the question of punishment. Ignoring a court order is a serious matter but do we really want to send a parent to prison? Prison should always be the final option but in future parents who play games with the court may find themselves facing community service orders, fines or compensation or even week end prison.      

The people who gave evidence have made a valuable contribution and I hope this legislation will lead to more mediation and less confrontation.

Having your parents fight over you in Court is no fun for a child.

To read the evidence given to the committee see: http://www.parliament.uk and go to Bills before Parliament and then Draft Bills.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Terrorism Debate

This was my main contribution to the debate on terrorism:

Mr. Soley: I hope not to detain the Committee for long. Having been involved in debates on the prevention of terrorism for about 25 years, I feel that I have built up some knowledge of the subject. One of the few encouraging aspects of the present situation is that we seem to be much more concerned about the legislation than we were before, when the Liberals and the Conservatives would often vote together to keep the prevention of terrorism Act on the statute book.

I want to make one point about the past, and I make it to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) as well. Successive Governments, Labour and Tory, renewed legislation in the House, often in overnight debates, and they did so at times when we were locking up several thousand people in internment in a ship in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. We excluded people from one part of the United Kingdom to another, again without judicial intervention, under successive Governments throughout that time.

What we are doing tonight is not essentially different. I do not use that as an argument for supporting the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) deployed one of the arguments that I used to use—that we were locking up many innocent people and, in doing so, losing support. But today there is a difference, and things have changed. I am pleased to say that the present situation is not nearly as bad as it was then. In the worst year of the 1980s, we locked up close to 6,000 people, of whom fewer than 1 per cent. were put on trial for anything to do with terrorism. The numbers now are far smaller, and the way in which the powers are used is a credit to the police. If they were used as they were in the past, I would be appalled at the consequences, particularly for the Islamic population of Britain, who tend to be in the front line on this matter.

I must say this to the Committee, and I say it carefully: I agree with the Home Secretary that the threat from terrorism is fundamentally different. That does not mean that we should conclude that what we are doing tonight is good. I shall return to that. The threat is fundamentally different, not only for the reasons given by the Home Secretary and others about suicide attacks and so on, but because the problem is so great when a terrorist organisation seeks to kill the largest number possible.

Kofi Annan made a very good speech on the subject in London, but unfortunately he made it on the same day as Prince Charles announced his engagement to Camilla, so it got no mention in the press at all. He spoke about the threat of an attack on London, the numbers involved and the impact on the world economy if weapons of mass destruction were used. It was an important speech. He also spoke of the United Nations being a target for those organisations, as people who read the transcripts from al-Jazeera and other stations will know. The problem is fundamentally different.

My issue with the Bill is the same as everyone else's. I do not believe that anyone in the House, including the Home Secretary, is happy about taking such powers. I propose a slightly different way forward. If the amendments being discussed are taken a little further, they will apparently satisfy the Liberals and may satisfy the Conservatives. We should not be content with that.

We cannot continue with a situation that has gone on for 20 or 30 years, whereby we try to deal with terrorism in a way that is not suited to the British judicial system. That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Let me make it clear that I do not like what the French do, but it is important to understand that the French system is not the only one in Europe.

Importantly, the Europeans deal with terrorism by locking people up for long periods without putting them on trial straight away, but they have a judicial system for doing that. The reason, as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—is that the inquisitorial system allows them to investigate the possibility of proceeding with a case, whereas the British system, which is adversarial, requires two people to be put up, one on either side, which leads to the very problem that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) expressed so powerfully—it makes it impossible to take evidence in the normal way in a British court. However we dress this up, we will not be able to do that.

I have great confidence in the Home Secretary, who really does work hard on these issues to move them forward. That is one of the reasons why I will support him tonight. I also think that we need to do something because the threat is very severe. However, I do not want to leave it there. We recognise that we have to do something for the present, but we cannot continue to legislate on terrorism in this way, because we will end up going round this track over and over again.

I have heard many of today's arguments before in the past 20 or 30 years. I fear that what will happen is what happened during that period, when the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed every year or every few years and the same debates took place over the same concerns. We must not fall into that trap.

I ask the Home Secretary to take the lead in bringing together the political parties represented here to consider a long-term solution to the problem. We should bear it in mind that the United Nations is now recommending that there be an international definition of terrorism. That proposal appeared in the high level panel's report in January and is likely to be accepted. It is also suggesting that it should be dealt with by the International Criminal Court or considered as a crime against humanity. There is potential in those areas.

We cannot go on with the traditional British way of doing this. It has not worked very well in the past, and it is satisfying no one, including, at present, members of the Government. I should like us to find a way forward and we can do that only if the Government and the major Opposition parties work together to consider our adopting, as I have suggested, a system along the European lines whereby for the very narrow area of terrorism we have an inquisitorial system that allows evidence to be considered before a court.

I do not want Britain to have an inquisitorial system generally—it has many failings, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said—but we kid ourselves if we think that the common law system provides an answer to the problem that lies at the heart of the Government's difficulties: that is, that the current British system has no way of dealing with a situation where there is enough information on an individual, either from this country or from overseas, to suggest that they might do something that will cost hundreds, if not thousands of lives. It is that serious and I ask that we try to find a way of producing a longer-term answer than this measure.

For the moment, I will vote for it in the hope that the Home Secretary will continue to make concessions and to consider other methods, but even if he makes all the concessions that the Conservatives and the Liberals want, I will remain deeply troubled by this legislation. We cannot leave it here. We have not come up with a solution to this problem in the past 20 or 30 years and we need to take a long, hard look at the way in which we approach it.

Hansard debates 29.2.05  http://www.parliament.uk