Oona King exudes niceness.  She wants a London where everything is nice.  The problem with that approach is that it is not really rooted in the real world.

Being Mayor of London is rather more complicated than sitting on the seventh floor of City Hall and saying “Wouldn’t it be nice, if …..”

According to Ross Lydall at the Evening Standard, Oona King (or her campaign team) has decided that it would be really, really nice if  people could take their bikes onto buses.

Which prompts the question, does Oona King (or her campaign team) ever use London’s buses?

Most buses are now quite full.  And they are getting fuller as routes become de-bendified (the replacements cannot carry as many passengers – even when the frequency has been increased – as the original bendie buses did – despite the  substantial extra costs being incurred to fulfil Mayor Boris Johnson’s campaign whim).

Frequently, mothers with children in buggies are not allowed to board because there are already two buggies on the bus and it is not safe to have more.

So where are all these bikes going to go?  The whole point of using a bike is that the rider does not need to use a car or a bus.  Allowing bikes on buses is likely to mean that those with young children will not be able to board and other passengers will be squeezed even more.

I repeat the question: does Oona King (or her campaign team) ever use London’s buses?

Regular readers (you both know who you are) will be aware that I have from time to time been somewhat flippant about Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (aka the Dog-Catcher-in -Chief). 

However, I am with him – and on occasions ahead of him – in the belief that more needs to be done about the growing problem of dangerous  bred/trained-for-attack dogs in London.  I therefore support the initiative that he is taking today petitioning the Government to take action to resolve the problem.

The GLA is calling for:

• an increase in the penalty for owning a banned breed, to bring it more inline with carrying an offensive weapon
• the extension of the law to include private land, particularly to protect people who have to visit other peoples homes as part of the work
• changes to the part of the law that allows well behaved banned breeds to remain with their owners, so that the process is much quicker, making it better for the dog and saving the police money.

Last time I asked there was little sign that the Coalition Government was planning to move on any of these points.  However, Kit Malthouse has (or at least he would like us to believe that he has) the ear of the Coalition Government.  No doubt, therefore, this initiative will  produce speedy action.  We’ll be waiting……

I have been hearing increasingly lurid stories about the incompetence and insensitivity of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in the way in which they “administer” MPs’ expenses.

However, I have now heard from two sources a story so outlandish that I felt I should investigate further.

IPSA Bulletin No6 explains helpfully:

“We have received a number of queries about maternity pay and other similar costs, therefore we wish to make it clear that IPSA will pay any necessary expenditure on maternity, paternity or adoptive leave for MPs’ staff. We will also pay for the cost of cover to replace the staff member on leave, provided the cover meets the normal Scheme rules. This is paid from the contingency fund – not because we are exercising discretion on whether to make these payments, but so that these payments do not impact on your capped staffing budget.”

The issue is what constitutes “necessary” expenditure.

This is “helpfully” clarified in the Expenses Rules, specifically rule 12.14 on contingency payments.  This requires that IPSA will only provide such payments for luxuries like maternity cover if they (IPSA) are satisfied that the MP could not:

“reasonably have been expected to take any action to avoid the circumstances which gave rise to the expenditure or liability”.

MPs are being faced with a form which in essence asks them to clarify what steps they took to prevent a staff member’s pregnancy.

Will relationship counselling be sufficient?  Or should the counselling extend to contraceptive advice?  Or even the provision of condoms for the MPs’ staff?

No wonder that so many staff who work for MPs are enraged and affronted.

I suppose nothing should surprise me about the LibDems, but I was taken aback by their reported reaction to a mid-year cutback in local health services.

My local newspaper, the Hornsey and Crouch End Journal, reports today that there is “Fury as GP walk-in services scrapped“.

The story relates to a decision by the local PCT to abandon a service providing drop-in health services for people who cannot get an appointment to see a GP at the new Hornsey Central Neighbourhood Health Centre, opened only a year ago, having been built at a cost of £12 million.

And who is quoted as being “extremely concerned” about the decision but local LibDem MP and junior Coalition Government Minister, Lynne Featherstone, alongside local LibDem councillor, David Winskill.

Apparently, neither of these local LibDem luminaries have made the connection between the mid-year cuts ordered by the Coalition Government’s emergency budget and the mid-year cuts announced by the local (soon to be abolished) PCT.

And who supports the Coalition Government locally?

Why the self-same local LibDem MP and junior Coalition Government Minister, Lynne Featherstone, and, of course, local LibDem councillors like David Winskill.

They just don’t get it, do they?

Or maybe they do and they are just two-faced hypocrites.

A couple of days ago Michael Crick floated the story that Vince Cable is being touted round as a candidate for London Mayor in 2012 (and not just as the LibDem candidate but as the COALITION candidate, but then soft-pedalled vigorously the following day.

However, his suggestion does have some real credibility.  Consider the following:

1. Vince Cable is clearly hating his current role in the Cabinet.  His body language oozes unhappiness.  He is visibly miserable about some aspects of Coalition policy and displays none of the relish shown by Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and the others for ditching major cherished pillars of LibDem orthodoxy.
2. Boris Johnson is desperately seeking a way out of contesting the Mayorality again in 2012.  It has turned out to be much harder work than he expected and it interferes with his extra-mural activities.  What is more, he is terrified of losing and he really, really, really wants to back in the House of Commons making his pitch to be the next Leader of the Conservative Party.  Interestingly, he has still failed to state clearly that he wants to run again.
3. David Cameron would dearly love to remove Boris Johnson’s platform (of course, he’d probably like to remove other things of his as well) which is used to grandstand on issues that undermine the Coalition while strengthening the standing that Boris has in the wider Conservative Party.
4. David Cameron does not want to see a Conservative candidate lose the most high-profile directly-elected position in the country.
5. Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg would like to bolster the Coalition and keep open the possibility of a non-aggression pact for their two Parties in the next General Election.  A coalition candidate for Mayor might just win and would be a big boost to Coalition candidates being fielded in 2015 (or whenever the General Election takes place).
6. The best alternative candidate the LibDems can come up with is Lembit Opik.
7. The best alternative candidate the Conservatives can come up with is Kit Malthouse.
8. Successfully imposing the notion of fielding a Coalition candidate would put Simon “no election pacts” Hughes firmly back into his box.

It all begins to look scarily plausible ….

From 25th September 2009:

The Parliament Education Service runs an annual Discover Parliament Programme aimed at 16-18 year olds studying higher level politics, citizenship and general studies.  This afternoon I met 80 students taking part in the Programme.  They were from three schools in Pinner, Chelmsford and Bristol.

As ever on such occasions, the questioning was lively, sometimes challenging and extremely wide-ranging.  We covered – amongst other things – such topics as:

• aren’t MPs too old (I’d explained that the average age of members of the House of Lords is 69);
• why aren’t 16 year olds allowed to vote or to sit in Parliament;
• what did I think of Gordon Brown;
• should taxes be put up in the current economic situation;
• should the age for getting a driving licence change;
• what were my views about David Cameron, Lord Mandelson and the BNP (interesting grouping);
• what should be done about knife crime and gangs;
• was “kettling” of G20 protesters fair (from a teacher);
• should children be taught more about current affairs;
• did the LibDems have a better record on MPs’ expenses;
• is the threat of terrorism rising;
• should there be limits on immigration;
• was the war in Iraq right; and
• did I think Labour would win the next General Election and when would it be?

As I said, a lively hour – and an exhilarating one too.

Effectively, these Discover Parliament programmes can only take place during school term time and when Parliament is not sitting.  In practice that means they are only possible for about four weeks a year from the early part of September.  A by-product of Speaker John Bercow’s proposal to shorten Parliament’s summer recess might well be to end these programmes. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Parliament sitting in September (something I personally would favour), it would be a retrograde step to lose this outreach work with young people.

I have already explained that I really don’t mind.

However, just in case you really really want to cast your vote for this blog in the Total Politics annual beauty parade, this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

Yesterday morning I went to an event hosted by the King’s Fund at which the Minister for Public Health, Anne Milton MP, was the guest speaker.  There was no questioning the Minister’s personal commitment to improving public health, but how much she will be able to deliver will only be clear once the Coalition Government publishes its detailed plans on the subject later in the year.

She clearly feels that her presence on a series of Cabinet Committees will give her the opportunity to shape the Government’s other policies so that they are more beneficial for public health.

I did wonder how much clout in practice she will have. 

For example, will she be able to stop in its tracks the Coalition’s intentions to phase out speed cameras with all the risks of increased road deaths and speed-related serious injuries?

And where was she when the Coalition decided that it should resist the inclusion of Personal, Social and Health Education in the curriculum requirement for its Academy Schools?

Just before the last Parliament was dissolved the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) became convinced that Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, had behaved improperly in trying to nobble members of the Committee in an attempt to water down the Committee’s criticism of his stewardship of the Commission.  As a result, they referred him for investigation by the Privileges Committee to consider whether he had committed Contempt of Parliament (which in the old days – and for all I know now – could be punished by imprisonment in the clock tower under Big Ben).

The Privileges Committee report was considered this afternoon by the full House of Lords.  The Committee’s finding was that Trevor Phillips had behaved in a way that was “inappropriate and ill-advised” but concluded that he was not guilty of Contempt – at least in part because his lobbying had been ineffectual.

Normally, such reports are approved with little debate.  However, on this occasion there was considerable dissent.

The Earl of Onslow said:

“I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights when these allegations were made. We were advised by our clerks that this was a clear breach of privilege. The effect of the lobbying—which there undoubtedly was—was obviously going to be minimal, because the three people whom others attempted to nobble were grown-up and intelligent enough to maintain the views that they had maintained the whole way through the discussion on Trevor Phillips’s behaviour. Admittedly, there was discussion in the committee and some people favoured a harsher report than others, but we came up with what was in effect a unanimous opinion. However, I am quite disappointed—that is the best way to put it—that this is what the Committee for Privileges found ….. at the time it seemed to us that there was a clear breach and I maintain that opinion.”

He was followed by Lord Dale Campbell-Savours who was even more scathing about the Committee’s findings:

“I will say a few words on the judgment of the committee, because I dissent from it. Perhaps I may take the time of the House to refer to a number of documents that underline my view. Paragraph 21 of the report states:

“We therefore conclude that, however inappropriate and ill-advised, Mr Phillips’ actions did not significantly obstruct or impede the work of the JCHR”.

The judgment of the Committee for Privileges seems to have turned on the words “significantly obstruct”. That should be seen in context. The chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr Dismore, in his submission to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, stated:

“The Committee’s consideration of its draft report on the EHRC was hampered by Mr Phillips’ actions. We were unable to agree a report on 9 February. Although we did agree a second version of the draft report on 2 March … I am in no doubt that Mr Phillips wanted either to tone down any criticisms we made of him in the draft Report or to delay the Committee’s deliberations so that we were unable to report before dissolution. Whether or not he was assisted by being familiar with the contents of the draft, he sought to achieve this aim by persuading Members he thought were ‘friends’ that the Committee’s inquiry was unbalanced and was motivated by hostility to him on the part of me or other Members. This represented a significant interference with our work which is why we looked to refer the matter to your Committee”.

The key words in that statement are:

“This represented a significant interference”.

We therefore have the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights saying that, in the view of the committee, this was a significant interference; we also have the judgment of the Privileges Committee that it “did not significantly obstruct”. The matter turns on those words.

However, if we look back to an inquiry that took place in the Commons in 1994, we have some guidance on how the Privileges Committee deals with these matters. I think that it is worth explaining to the House that this matter was dealt with by the Privileges Committee in the House of Lords because the Commons went into recess and was not in a position to consider the matter fully, although it put into the public domain a number of memoranda that had been submitted to the committee for consideration for a report that it subsequently did not produce.

In the Willetts inquiry in 1994, Mr Willetts, a member of the other place, had been accused of trying to nobble the chairman of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith. In response to a remit from the House to investigate an allegation of improper pressure brought to bear on a Select Committee, the conclusion of that inquiry was that,

“we have to consider how far the term ‘pressure’ is synonymous with ‘influence’. We recognize that, while assent to or reinforcement by one Member of an opinion held by another could be regarded as influence, something further is required, in the form of a positive and conscious [effort] to shift an existing opinion in one direction or another, for a Member’s words and actions to constitute pressure”.

I argue that there was a positive and conscious effort to shift existing opinion because the draft report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights had, in part, been leaked to Mr Phillips. My noble friend Lord Dubs says no, but perhaps I may refer him to another document, which provides us with evidence of that. It is a submission from Mr Phillips himself to the Standards and Privileges Committee, in which he states that he received a memorandum on 22 March this year. I am sorry to delay the House on this matter but it is extremely important, because it is about nobbling the members of a Select Committee prior to the publication of their report. An e-mail received by Mr Phillips from a member of staff of the Equality and Human Rights Commission dated 6 February 2010 states:

“I was talking to someone this evening”—

that is, a member of his staff is being quoted—

“who had had sight of the current draft of the JCHR report. He said the report, in its current state, was fairly weak and emphasised a few points”.

The leak of that report advises Mr Phillips of the contents that are critical of him, which is why he was seeking to influence the individual members of the committee.

All I am saying to the House is that this is an important matter. We are not going to divide on it, but I believe that the Privileges Committee could have produced a far stronger document. It has not taken into account the precedent of pressure on Select Committee members and I believe that today the House is taking the wrong decision.”

Then it was the turn of Lord Tyler:

“The fact that the attempt to influence members of the committee was unsuccessful is surely not entirely relevant. The fact that the members were successful in resisting any attempt to influence them is of course important in the outcome, but if someone attempted to bribe a Member of either House but was unsuccessful, would it not still be contempt and a very serious matter? The success of members of the committee in resisting the attempt to influence them is not crucial in this matter.”

So the Committee’s report was criticised from all sides of the House – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – and it sounds as if Trevor Phillips was lucky to get away with just having his knuckles rapped.  Goolies in the mincer next time?

Over the last thirty years or so there have been concerns that London MPs have never banded together to form a strong cross-Party lobby for London and Londoners – in the same way that MPs from other regions have done.

There is a very active group of London Labour MPs, which achieved much in the past.

And there is an All-Party London Group in the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Montgomery of Alamein (not that one, his son), but that is hardly the same thing and any way members of the House of Commons are not part of the Group.

So I was interested to see that in the All-Party Notices – an official document put together by the Parliamentary authorities that is circulated with the Party Whip documents for all Parties in both House – that an inaugural meeting of an All-Party Group on London was to take place last night at 6pm in Room W2 (off Westminster Hall).  Strangely, no contact was given in the Notice as to who was organising the meeting.  And unusually, there had been no e-mail or letter round to MPs and Peers who might be interested explaining the purpose of the meeting.

Intrigued, I turned up to room W2 at the appointed time.  It was empty.  A few moments later I was joined by Jim Fitzpatrick MP, former Minister for London and as intrigued as I was as to what this new Group was all about and who was organising it.

Ten minutes or so later, we were still the only people present and, as inaugural meetings normally only last two or three minutes, we left.  On our way out we checked who had booked the room.  It turned out that the meeting was in the name of Mike Freer MP, the former Leader of Barnet Council who introduced the Ryanair approach to public services to local government.

So why didn’t he turn up?

And why were no Coalition MPs or Peers present?

Clearly, the Coalition Government does not regard London as important.  No Minister has been designated as Minister for London -despite the practice of having a Minister for London pre-dating the last Labour Government.

Maybe Mike Freer thought this deficit might be – in part – rectified by setting up an All-Party Group, but his enthusiam didn’t seem to extend beyond booking a room.  Bit pathetic really.