New perspectives

I'm very happy to see the new Green Party team on the City Council settle down following my successful replacement by Cllr Anna Key.  Anna made her maiden speech and gained cross party support for her council motion on Wednesday.

To have a proper (possibly permanent) break from positions of responsibility, I've shed my roles on Green Party national executive, chair of the Association of Green Councillors, leader of Liverpool Green Party, St Michaels ward councillor and, finally, as a school governor.

With this new freedom, I can devote some time to writing, such as this blog, without worrying about taking time away from urgent work directly helping people.

Corbyn and the New Politics

The emergence of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader is interesting and very hopeful.  It is part of a shake up of politics showing that the politics of the future does not have to be like the politics of the past.

There is a lot of convergence between Green Party policy and Corbyn's platform, but there are important differences too.  One of the most hopeful signs is his wish to engage positively with opponents and debate ideas.  Much more to be said on this.

But same old politics in Liverpool City Council

I hesitate before suggesting people look at the video of last week's Council meeting.  Corbyn culture has not yet taken hold in Liverpool Labour. For example, instead of engaging with the Green proposals on recycling we hear a repeat of the falsehood that "Greens opposed fortnightly bin collections".  They know we didn't, but if a brazen falsehood is repeated often enough it sometimes sticks.   (For the true record on Greens and fortnightly collection see here.)

Nine minutes into the Council meeting we have a classic example of the Mayor's response to scrutiny and criticism - a 15 minute rant against his evil accusers, particularly in the form of LibDem councillor Richard Kemp.  According to the judge in Anderson's Employment Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal, the Mayor's conduct "can reasonably be regarded as culpable or blameworthy".

The judge had also said "It is unclear to me why the legal department of Liverpool should have been acting on behalf of the Claimant in his private capacity." and that has encouraged some people to demand the Mayor pays back the £89k legal fees that Liverpool council tax payers have stumped up.

For me, the most troubling aspect of his behaviour in calling his critics "liars" is that he appears totally sincere about it and unshakable in his self belief.  To avoid any dissenting voices being heard, he would not permit any questions as if there is only one true point of view that should be heard.

From my reading of that Tribunal judgement, I think the Mayor is seriously misinforming himself.  Also the press and local BBC coverage has so far failed to drill down into the essentials of this case.  I hope to do that drilling down in a future blog post.

Handing over to a very worthy successor

After 13 years as a city councillor (9 of those as a Green), my term of office is coming to an end.  On Thursday the voters of St Michaels ward in Liverpool will decide if I will be succeeded by local resident Anna Key for the Green Party or by her Labour Party challenger.

I know Anna well from her work with local resident communities and as a fellow school governor in the school where we both have children.  I am impressed.  Despite not having English as her first language (she was born in Poland), she has a strong grasp of local issues and concerns as well as the radical Green Party philosophy.

Of course, with a simultaneous general election, the result of the council elections are more uncertain.  Last time the Green vote was twice the size of the Labour vote, but we cannot take that margin for granted: it may be very close.

What do we know about the Labour candidate?  We're told he has experience as a councillor at a senior level in the past.  And I'm told he made a decent fist of that role.  What's incomplete is that his leaflets don't tell which party he represented when he was last on the Council (it wasn't Labour).

Over the years, the Green Party has had to deal with negative campaigning from both Lib Dems and Labour.  I am disappointed that this continues and does not bode well if we had a Labour councillor sitting alongside the continuing Greens.

The latest example includes a misinformed or malicious personal smear on our candidate Anna Key.  Anna has acted on professional advice to remove some unsafe overcrowded poplar trees from her garden in order to plant some more suitable specimens.

There was a not very well informed press report here.  Labour seized on this and exaggerated it.  I find it really creepy that the Labour agent thought it was legitimate to try to stir up ill feeling by calling on her neighbours behind her back.  in fact the people who actually live near her house know about the reasons for the tree removal and welcome it.  Anna describes the full story below.

When we bought our house we were advised by our solicitors that we would potentially be liable for the pavement damage as well as any injuries or damage falling branches may cause. The trees were also interfering with the street lighting. After seeking advice from several tree surgeons we decided that the best course of action would be to get rid of them as if they were to be reduced it would make them weaker (their branches 'panic grow') which would render them even more prone to snapping.
Our potential liabilities were one of our main reasons to have them removed but potential damage to the house also played a big part. Some were very close to the house and we were told their roots might be  interfering with the house's foundations. Some of them were over 60 feet tall and less than 10 feet away from the house. Several insurance companies have told us our insurance premium would be significantly higher if the trees were to stay.
These are not the right trees for town gardens as they grow too tall too quickly. Due to their enormous height they were making our garden and house as well as the garden of our next door neighbour very dark. Our next door neighbour was delighted to hear that we were getting rid of them and helped with the works himself. Due to density of their branches they generated heavy leaf fall both into our and our neighbours' gardens but also onto the pavement of Promenade Gardens making it slippery and dangerous.
We will replace them with more sustainable and appropriate trees that will be here to stay for many years to come.

It's worth noting, too, that the Riverside Gardens area has contained many other copses of trees left over from the 1984 garden festival.  For that event, many fast-growing trees were planted close together to create an immediate effect: they were never intended to be a permanent plantation.  Indeed, local councillors have helped residents in Floral Wood and Cottonwood to remove and/or reduce a stand of overcrowded trees left over and unmaintained since 1984.

Mayoral welcome ... and some confusion,

Publishing here, a reply to an "open letter" from Mayor Joe Anderson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Joe,
It's is always useful to have our policies tested whether by friend or foe.  As we emerge as a contender for government we will increasingly be called on to review and refine our policies.  Our underlying values and principles will remain the same.

The answer to your question "What do we stand for" lies in the general election manifesto which will be released in a few weeks' time.  That manifesto, like its predecessor for the 2010 election, is informed by the large body of policies maintained on our web site.  Some of those polices apply to the long term, some are applicable sooner. 

I will respond to the particular ones you have chosen to highlight.  The headings you have placed above each of our policies, though, are not accurate.  (My comments are in green.)

"1.       Legal protection for the right to join or support terrorist groups"

Policies for A Sustainable Society PD433 "It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts."

There is no "right to join a terrorist group".  You've picked the wrong policy, anyway, as PD433 relates to the arms trade.  Perhaps you were in a hurry.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

You probably meant to criticise policy PD443 and you should quote it in full and consider it together with the other policies in the section which take a strong line on Terrorism. 

PD443 says Those accused or found guilty of atrocities, or planning to commit, aid or abet in their execution, should be dealt with under the same principles as those accused of more conventional criminal activities. In particular, those accused of supporting terrorist acts should have normal rights against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts.

So raising money for and encouraging people to fight for Islamic State, for example, would be against PD443 and are criminal.

"2.       Stop Funding Faith-Schools"

Policies for a Sustainable Society ED176 “No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.”

This policy relates to the long term.  It did not appear in the 2010 manifesto and is unlikely to be in the 2015 manifesto, but the secular principle is a good one.

Before it appeared in a future manifesto I believe we would need to refine and extend this policy  to show how schools would be supported by good local authorities through a gradual transition,  respecting their ethos and traditions.

"3.       Ending school places for 5 year olds"

Policies for Sustainable Society ED023 “We will move towards a system in which early years education extends until the age of 6. This will mean that academic learning is not introduced until the age of 6.”

You misunderstand.  This does not mean "Ending school places for 5 year olds".  It relates to research that shows that children can benefit if academic learning in schools is delayed until children are a bit older; meanwhile they should receive early years education.  The principle operates well in Finland.

"4.       Propose a “zero-growth” economy"

Policies for Sustainable Society EC201 “Allow the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship should this be necessary on the grounds of sustainability.”

I think you misunderstand the difference between "economic growth" and "dependence on economic growth".  The policy advocates an economy which is strong enough to provide for people's needs and flexible enough to grow or shrink as necessary from time to time without individual hardship, as it says.
 

"5.       Dismantle UK borders and ditch immigration controls"

Policies for Sustainable Society MG300 “We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.”

Your heading misrepresents this medium-term policy.   We do not propose to open UK borders.  We need effective immigration controls.

If you believe in greater equality, and I understand you may have described yourself as a socialist at one time, then you would applaud the aim for greater equality between Western and non-Western countries.

As that aim is achieved, progressively, the incentive for migration would reduce.  As that incentive progressively reduces, and in step with that, the UK immigration controls could be progressively reduced.

John Coyne
Leader, Liverpool Green Party

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Open letter to the Green Party - What do you stand for?
Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:11:19 +0000
From:	Anderson, Joe (Mayor of Liverpool) <Joe.Anderson@liverpool.gov.uk>
To:	Office@GreenParty.org.uk <Office@GreenParty.org.uk>, Coyne, John <John.Coyne@liverpool.gov.uk>

Open Letter to Green Party Councillors and candidates.  Addressed to national and local leaders Natalie Bennett and Cllr John Coyne

First, welcome to Liverpool.

The venue you have chosen for your Spring Conference 2015 is a world class facility in a world famous city. As Labour Mayor of Liverpool, I am pleased you appreciate the investment we have made in our city, will experience the unrivalled hospitality of our people and will enjoy the business friendly attitude of our city. We are also a sustainable city and I’m sure our success in tackling carbon issues, supporting our residents with quality services and the growth of our economy were all factors in your decision to come to Liverpool this week.

As we approach the 2015 General Election and important local elections here in Liverpool, we are all looking forward to the various debates and discussions that will help inform voters’ decisions. During your conference you will no doubt raise these issues.

Like many Liverpool residents, I watched and listened to recent interviews with Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett on BBCTV, Radio 4 and LBC.

Frankly, I was left surprised and a little confused about the policies of the Green Party as we head into May’s elections.

To clear up any misunderstandings amongst Liverpool city residents, I thought it would be helpful for you to put on record your position on the range of policies Ms. Bennett raised on national TV and radio and proposes for your manifesto. I have listed the most eye-catching of your policies and, helpfully, added the reference to the relevant section of your policy document – Policies For A Sustainable Society.

1.       Legal protection for the right to join or support terrorist groups

Policies for A Sustainable Society PD433 "It should not be a crime simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with its aims, though it should be a crime to aid and abet criminal acts or deliberately fund such acts."

2.       Stop Funding Faith-Schools

Policies for a Sustainable Society ED176 “No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.”

3.       Ending school places for 5 year olds

Policies for Sustainable Society ED023 “We will move towards a system in which early years education extends until the age of 6. This will mean that academic learning is not introduced until the age of 6.”

4.       Propose a “zero-growth” economy

Policies for Sustainable Society EC201 “Allow the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship should this be necessary on the grounds of sustainability.”

5.       Dismantle UK borders and ditch immigration controls

Policies for Sustainable Society MG300 “We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.”

Enjoy your time in Liverpool and I look forward to you sharing your policy positions with me and the people of this great city.

Joe Anderson

Mayor of Liverpool

 

Civilising Smithdown Road

The council is borrowing £80m to resurface some of the city's main roads.  As the work progresses, this could be an opportunity to make changes.  Traffic could be tamed; local centres could be brought back to life and made better places to live, work and socialise.
There are some well-established principles that can be applied to make that happen, but the current political leadership of the city council disagrees.  The biggest single change that could be made, at little cost, would be to put a 20mph speed limit on the roads as they pass through local centres.
Unfortunately the council has a special Liverpool policy against a 20mph speed limit on any main road - even the main roads where people live and shop.  Other local authorities have overtaken Liverpool and look at each section of each road on its merits.

So what's special about Smithdown Road for the Green Party?

There are many local centres in Liverpool which are bisected by main roads and we believe that each of them should be looked at to see if slower speeds and design changes can make them better places - like urban villages.  The part of Smithdown Road between Grant Avenue and Gainsborough Road is a very good example.

© OpenStreetMap 

You could make a case for extending the area of this "urban village", but the section between Gainsborough Road and Grant Avenue has the greatest potential for improvement, given some progressive changes to the way the highway is used.
There are a lot of good ideas in the government's guidance "Manual for Streets".

Manual for Streets explains an important way of looking at streets, recognising that they are not just highways.  As well as a "movement" function they also have a "place" function.

The Green Party is trying to get the council to recognise this way of thinking.  We will be paying off the £80m debt for years to come so it is worth getting the maximum value from that investment and seizing any opportunity to make our high streets better places.

Therefore we put a motion to the committee that scrutinises transport - here.  It was not well received - see the bottom section of this post.

Slowing Down, Saving Lives

This section of Smithdown Road is just over half a mile, at 850 metres.  What would be the impact on journey times if we slow traffic to 20mph?  There are three sets of traffic lights involved so most of the traffic is subject to slowing down or stopping and then accelerating again.  A 20mph limit would reduce the emissions and air pollution caused by those accelerations.  Time lost would be small, but the reduction in road danger could be very important.  With a 20mph speed limit there is less pressure on drivers to take risks and speed up.  Cyclists can more easily cross the lanes of traffic, particularly going between Arundel Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

On the rare occasions where all the traffic lights are green it would take 32 seconds longer to travel between Grant Avenue and Gainsborough Road at 20mph compared to a steady 30mph.  Is that too much of a sacrifice?

So let the people decide.

Manual for Streets has a lot to say about the balance between the movement function and the place function of a street.

People who drive along Smithdown Road may not appreciate that they are entering an important "place".  But the people who live in the area, use the local shops and walk to school etc will see it differently.  Slowing traffic will reduce noise as well as road danger and pollution, making this local centre a more valuable place to inhabit.

The Green Party thinks that local people should be asked and the expert guidance would agree with us on that:- 

2.4.11     In many situations it will be possible to determine the place status of existing streets by consulting with the people living there. Such community consultation is encouraged.

Nobody would deny that this part of Smithdown has to provide for the movement of traffic.  A 20mph speed limit is a "quick win" - a painless improvement to the quality of this local centre, but it will not be an easy challenge to find further, achievable design changes that will reduce the dominance of traffic while allowing necessary traffic to pass through. Nevertheless it is a challenge which should be taken up.

_But what does Labour say?_

The councillor in charge of transport is Cabinet Member Malcolm Kennedy.  he has ruled out putting a 20mph speed limit on any 'A' or 'B' road in Liverpool.  That is a view we are seeking to change.  Most of the collisions and casualties on Liverpool's roads occur on these roads and other local authorities are now much more willing to extend the benefit of slower speeds to the main roads that they control.  Liverpool is being left behind.

Malcolm Kennedy's other problem is that his regime doesn't "get" the idea of redesigning streets so they are fit for people.  At the committee meeting he rejected the use of the guidance in "Manual for Streets".  He misdirected the committee by asserting that Manual for Streets is only applicable to lightly-trafficked residential streets and lightly-trafficked lanes in rural areas.  But the guidance itself says the following. (Emphasis added).

MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential
streets, but many of its key principles may be
applicable to other types of street, for example
high streets and lightly-trafficked lanes in rural
areas. It is the responsibility of users of MfS
to ensure that its application to the design of
streets not specifically covered is appropriate.

Malcolm left out the mention of "high streets".  And a main road passing through a local centre indeed acts as a high street.

Malcolm also appears to have forgotten, or perhaps never understood, that the applicability of these principles was put beyond doubt by the publication in 2010 of "Manual for Streets 2".

‘Manual for streets 2’ builds on the philosophies set out in ‘Manual for streets’ and demonstrates through guidance and case studies how they can be extended beyond residential streets to encompass both urban and rural situations. It fills the perceived gap in design advice that lies between ‘Manual for streets’ and the design standards for trunk roads as set out in the ‘Design manual for roads and bridges’.

Of course, guidance is only guidance.  Any local authority can disregard this best practice.  The depressing thing is that a scrutiny committee, which is supposed to apply critical thought to the policies of the administration, instead lets itself turn into a celebration of ignorance.

Libraries - hope amongst the mixed messages

What's going on?

I've been struggling to make sense of the Mayor's position on the 11 "at risk" libraries.  The story (opposite) going out from Labour in the Greenbank ward adds to the confusion.  I have checked the facts and I've written to Cllr Roberstson-Collins (pictured) asking for a retraction: she has not "saved" Sefton Park Library.

The Library is in the Green-voting St Michaels ward and its three Green councillors have been closely involved in two aspects of the campaign to save it.

Firstly we have supported campaigns, petitions and demonstrations against the Mayor's plans to make cuts to the libraries.  But secondly we have supported, and indeed led, the formation of The Friends of Sefton Park Library which has put forward a "Plan B" in response to the Mayor's challenge to the community to show how volunteers and other organisations could find other ways to retain library services when revenue from the City Council was withdrawn.

The Mayor's BBC announcement on Monday10th November came as a surprise.  We were expecting a report to be published for Cabinet on 21st November, so no announcement was needed.  It's been suggested to me that the reason the Mayor made his surprise announcement was to head off the demonstration planned two days later at the City Council meeting.
The positive and important thing is the new commitment to save all of the "at risk" libraries.  But we did not know if that depended on continuing our "Plan B" for Sefton Park Library.

Having checked with the Head of Libraries, it is confirmed that the partnership proposal involving the Friends and a not-for-profit training organisation continues to be the only proposal on the table for retaining some kind of public library service from the Library building.  There is more work to do on that proposal, as part of the overall libraries continuation plan to go the the City Council's Cabinet next month for decision.

Failure to build bridges

The campaign to save the libraries has been vigorous and diverse, involving notable local writers as well as large numbers of library users.  It has achieved a change of mind on, at least, restoring part of the funding for the "at risk" community libraries.  It's very odd that the Mayor continued to attack the campaigners rather than acknowledge the sincerity of their cause and celebrate a reconciliation.

It's also odd that he praises the good people who have worked on volunteer-led solutions and condemns people campaigning to keep all libraries open.  In practice we know that in many cases it is the same people who have been active in both roles.

Who knows, maybe we will see another change of the Mayoral mind on that, but in the meantime his choice to make enemies of Liverpool citizens helps weaken his political base - which may be no bad thing for democracy hereabouts.

Here is the time line, with special reference to Sefton Park Library

• Wednesday 10th September a special meeting of the Council's culture committee approved of the decision to put 11 libraries at risk.  At that meeting a Green Party motion asked the committee to support the idea of reallocating approximately £1.6m from the mayoral and councillors' discretionary funds to save the libraries (first put forward at the Council's Budget meeting on 5th March).
• After that meeting, the Council was stated to be consulting on ways to save some of the 11 "at risk" libraries for which budget support had been deleted.
• On 6th October all four Green Party councillors attended the public meeting organised by the Council to discuss Wavertree and Sefton Park libraries.  (I did not see the two Labour Party councillors for Greenbank ward attend that meeting - perhaps they were working "behind the scenes"?.)  I spoke about our intention to look for partners to work with volunteers to keep Sefton Park Library open.  This was acknowledged by the Council officers present.
• On Thursday 23rd October, the first meeting of the Friends of Sefton Park Library took place; a simple constitution was adopted.
•  On Wednesday 29th October, Green councillor Tom Crone challenged the Mayor to help the libraries by using some of the money saved from ending the Liverpool Direct contract  The Mayor said "no".  (But 10 days later the Liverpool Direct savings were part of his libraries funding plan!) 
• On Monday 3rd November we held a public meeting to report and agree an outline for a provisional joint "Plan B", working with Riverside Learning and Education Centre.
• On Thursday 6th November a working party from the Friends and Riverside LEC agreed a letter of intent to be sent to the Head of Libraries which was promptly acknowledged as fit for purpose.
• On Monday 10th November the Mayor made his surprise announcement.

The Friends of Sefton Park Library will hold its Inaugural General Meeting on Wednesday 3rd December at 7.30pm in the cricket club, Southwood Road.  Although Green Party members have been instrumental in setting up the Friends group, it is open to any supporter of the Library to join, regardless of political affiliation.

Liverpool CEX and Rotherham

Up to now I have avoided any public comment on the controversy around Liverpool's Chief Executive (CEX) and his time at Rotherham.

I am going to restrict my comment to my participation in a meeting with him and the Mayor on 5th November.  A press report on that meeting is here.  Not entirely accurate, in my opinion, but more or less correct.

Yesterday the Mayor in a live BBC interview said this

“...It was good enough for (Cllr Coyne) it was good enough for me. Howard Newby chaired it, the city solicitor was there and we didn’t take part in a charade. We took part in an investigation, if you like, a conversation with the chief executive, talking to him about his role in Rotherham and he explained that in a fair and open and transparent way and I think that satisfied everybody there.”

Again, more or less correct, but I need to clarify. I didn't see it as an investigation.  It was a briefing and a conversation.  An implication that we "investigated" and were "satisfied" could be misleading.  I was satisfied about the CEX's openness to us in responding to questions and explaining.  But we were not, and never could be, in a position to reach any conclusion about his time at Rotherham.  That would require a full knowledge of all the facts and the resources to mount a proper investigation.

The City Council's role in this is as the employer of a CEX and it has a duty of care to all employees.  It doesn't have the responsibility to take any action about the conduct of that employee in a previous job.

If the Council did start to open any kind of conduct inquiry it would have had to be held in private anyway - just like any disciplinary hearing of any employee at whatever level.  But my understanding of the advice is that Council has no locus to open any kind of formal process and if it did so and if subsequently the CEX felt he had to resign over Rotherham, then he could seek to sue the Council for having made his position impossible.

So I took part in a confidential briefing which was not an investigation and could not reach any conclusion.   Why should I do that?

There are two reasons.  In May this year the Green Party became the main opposition and I became Leader of the Opposition on the City Council.  The new role involves more contact with the Chief Executive.  This is not a close relationship - we don't meet socially - but it is a working relationship.  Given that he was willing to speak to political leaders to explain his account of his time at Rotherham and deal with media speculation, I believed it would help me to know more about his version of the facts.

The second reason is that, as opposition leader, I have a responsibility to scrutinise what the Mayor does.   Being at the meeting allowed me to do that.  If I thought there was any wrongdoing by the Mayor then I would not hesitate to say so.  As it happens, I think the constraints on him and the Council as the employer do not allow any other course of action.

Having agreed to attend a confidential meeting, I will continue to respect that confidentiality.  There was no record taken and I will not disclose any recollections of what was asked or answered.

That may disappoint some people, but it should be recognised that the meeting of 5th November has not changed anything.  If there is a reputable employment lawyer willing to offer contrary advice and say that the Council indeed does have a duty to investigate an employee's conduct in another job ten years ago and can do that fairly, then the Council could look at that advice.

 

An English Parliament?

Last week I was privileged to represent the Green Party on a panel at a meeting called by the Hannah Mitchell Foundation

They campaign for democratic government for the North of England and the meeting discussed new opportunities in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum.

Constitutional reform is very interesting - even exciting now - after the Scotland debate.  Many people saw "Yes" as the progressive option and we saw formerly committed Labour (and Libdem) voters detach themselves from their party's lead, perhaps for the first time.  It may be that the referendum campaign has been a significant "disruptive" event, opening up new political possibilities.

Following the vote, the Scottish Green Party (as well as the SNP) saw a major surge in new membership.  Across the border we are seeing a Green surge too and it may in part be due to English voters' empathy with Scottish voters.  We were engaged in the debate too and in England it is the Greens who were identified with the progressive side of the debate.

Back to the meeting.

Although I am very interested in constitutional issues, I am no expert and it was clear to me that other people on the panel and in the body of the meeting had done a great deal of thinking.

A nice insight from the floor was Liverpool's answer to the  "West Lothian Question" - the "Kensington Question.  An MP representing Kensington in London can vote on transport matters relating to Kensington in Liverpool, but a Liverpool MP can't vote on transport matters for Kensington in London.  Why? Because transport is devolved to the Greater London Authority.

There can be a difficulty if we have a patchwork of devolutions across England with some regions opting to have a devolved assembly and others not.  On the other hand it would be oppressive to impose a pattern of regional assemblies where people don't want them.  In my opinion a referendum would be needed in each case.

Meanwhile the original West Lothian Question remains and, while I distrust David Cameron's motives, the crude slogan "English Votes for English Laws" has some appeal.

The Green Party's policies do include an answer to the Question and forsee situations where a patchwork of devolutions could require different voting rights for different groups of representatives in the various assemblies.

So what about an English Parliament?

Here, I went "off script" and expressed a personal view.  I think there is a need for an assembly to represent England as a political unit.  I dislike the remedy of having two classes of MPs inside the Westminster parliament and I think there is a good case for separating the idea of "England" from the idea of "The UK".  Again, from the floor we had the insight that a new English parliament or assembly could be better modelled on the Scottish Parliament - with proportional representation.  In that way it would be quite distinct from the continuing UK parliament.  Where would it sit?  How about Liverpool?

Over time, the UK parliament might have less and less business to do.  I can think of UK roles that I would like to jettison - particularly the nuclear weaponry and the military interventionism.  But that is a story for another day.