Monthly Archives: Aug 2005

What next for Lib Dem crime policies?

Posted on by

The months after a general election in which the party’s crime policies – specifically, its sentencing policies – came under much attack from Labour and – especially – the Conservatives is a good time to pause and take stock.

Much as we might dislike the testosterone-fuelled macho game of “my prison population’s are bigger than yours”, it does strike a chord with the public. Fed up with crime? Blame someone, beat ’em up – oops no, we’re meant to be civilized, so just lock ’em up instead.

There seems to have been two responses to this in the party since May 5th. The first batch are easy to deal with – people say we’re soft on crime because of policy X so ditch policy X. My answer to that is simple – no. For example – should we really have to start believing that that a cold-blooded and pre-meditated killer should have the same minimum sentence as a battered wife who lashes out in a moment of desperation?

The other response is wrong too – that we should therefore spend more time campaigning on issues such opposing mandatory life sentences for murder. It’s a beguiling logic – other parties raise the issue, it’s an issue which goes down badly on the doorstep – until we explain it – when the experience of many canvassers is that it is easy to persuade people to back it. (A task that’s been made easier since the election with the Director of Public Prosecutions coming out against mandatory life sentences. I await the Tory leaflets attacking him for not understanding crime or being soft on it … !)

But that it is a political dead-end – dancing to the tune of the other parties, and spending up those valuable nanoseconds when we actually get to talk to floating voters on topics which – whatever we may think – are in substance peripheral for most voters.

They want fewer crimes – and aren’t really bothered with the niceties of sentencing problems. Because the real issue is not the detail of the policies but the overall impression some have – that the Lib Dems don’t take crime seriously. And that’s not about the details of our policies on sentencing so much as our often silence in year round campaigning about crime.

Yes, at election time we roll out the fully costed specifics – X thousand more police most times – but if the rest of the time we’re largely silent, it suggests we are soft on crime.

“Silent” may be a harsh term – but then so are the horror stories of candidates in our target seats who didn’t want crime in their leaflets in the run up to a general election because “crime’s not a big issue round here.”

If we genuinely campaign on crime issues all year round, then we build up credibility and trust with the public. And that brings insurance against the attacks for being soft on crime – they don’t sound so horrible when the voters know we’ve helped set up a neighbourhood watch, got new street lighting, had a dark and dangerous passageway redesigned and so on. Credibility based on track-records means people are more likely to give you a second-chance or the benefit of the doubt when an attack from another party comes up.

Getting that credibility also means being more imaginative about campaigning against crime. It shouldn’t simply be a matter of dusting off a few well-worn phrases about “X demands Y more police in place Z”. It’s about using all those levers we have – real power in so many councils – to help tackle the conditions in which crime thrive – to make improved street lighting as important a part of pavement politics as potholes, to serious support youth facilities.

It’s about working together with the local police. Most police are willing to listen seriously to complaints about particular areas being neglected – they are as aware as anyone of how imperfect policing based on crime statistics is, particularly given the high level of under-reporting of crimes like graffiti, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

But it’s also about thinking more deeply of the connection between the police and the community. One of Sir Robert Peel’s nine-founding principles of policing, laid out when he created our country’s modern police force, talks of the relationship between the public and the police – … “the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Fighting crime isn’t just something you can pay for through your taxes and can then ignore. It’s something all of society has to do. Unless we want a police state with policemen and cameras on every street corner, there will always be a role for the eyes and ears of non-policemen. And unless we have every room, phone line and open space bugged and filmed, there will always be a need for evidence seen or heard by members of the public.

More than that, engaging with and making use of the pubic doesn’t just mean policing can stop short of a police state – it also makes for better policing. Want to prioritise tackling crime hotspots? Well, you need the public to report crimes – and not just the rare violent ones but the more mundane day to day too. Want to have a police force representative of the communities it polices? Well, that’s far easier if you have consent and support for policing, so a career in policing isn’t a choice that ostracises those who take it.

And want to tackle the fear of crime? Well, you need people willing to tell you where their fears lie and what can be done to assuage them – things that bare crime statistics only hint at – that dark alleyway may not have any crime, but it may leave many scared. Fear of crime and crime itself are often only loosely connected – but just as that means fighting crime shouldn’t be solely driven by sometimes outlandish or misguided fears, it means decisions on tackling fear of crime can’t only be driven by pouring over crime statistics.

All of this means having a police force that is closely rooted in the communities it polices. One that inspires confidence that it is safe and productive to talk to and engage with.

In its own small way, my campaign to get the front counter reopened to the public at one of my constituency’s police stations shows what we should be thinking about.

Public services need to be local and rooted in communities to both reflect those communities’ needs and to gain support for the bills they run up. In policing, that means local police stations, not far-off isolated super-centres. It also means making it easy for people to report “minor” crimes, so that policing can truly reflect the range of abuses taking place. And that means – as well as having the phones answered promptly – having front counters at those local stations where people can call in.

In the case of Muswell Hill police station, it has meant the police training up volunteers from the local populace to staff a re-opened the front counter. The volunteers mean the police station has a front-counter that is open, letting the public pop in – and by making contact easier, encouraging more of it than we had before when the police station’s front to the public was a closed door on the main road. When the public do pop in – they see neighbours, from their own community, serving behind the front counter. Properly screened and trained of course – but it’s clearly a service being provided by the community for the community.

Of course, a few dye-in-the-wool Tories in the area said, “It’s outrageous. I pay my taxes – why on earth should I now have to do anything else?”

The answer is simple – “Sorry, we believe in a community where everyone works together. If you want to just to leave some money out and then hide yourself away, we’re not the party for you.”

Getting volunteers isn’t about finding a way of making the sums add up to reopen a public service, it’s about having a public service that is closely connected with the community.

You don’t just get better public services that way – you also get communities which better understand the reality of best delivering those servi
ces, and which are thereby protected against the shock-horror cheap theatrics of the lock ’em all up and throw away the key brigade.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2005. This article first appeared in Liberator.

Visiting a local mosque

Posted on by

Last visit of the day is to the Wightman Road Mosque. Excellent conversation with the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Trust which runs the mosque.

We sit in a meeting room upstairs and range our discussion across the obvious issues of the day. We all agree that more engagement is necessary to offset the suspicion that has fallen on the Muslim population so unfairly in almost all cases. Clearly Iraq looms large in the causes of bombing coming to our shores. I think Tony Blair’s early denial that the war was anything to do with the bombings was just the most stupid thing he could say. Not a direct and solitary cause of course – but to say it played no part – ridiculous.

However, we are all solidly agreed that bombing and violence have no place in a democratic society. From which we move to the fact that so many of the community did not vote and do not believe in engaging in the democratic process. I suggest that along with coming to the mosque so that young people have the opportunity to question and talk with me (an MP) directly, that in addition if there are groups of youngsters (or anyone) who would like to come to tour Parliament and meet myself and a few other MPs I would be happy to arrange such a visit. I think engagement in the political life and process of the country is vital.

This is a well run mosque who have banned some of the organisations the media give so much time to. They are worried that T Blair’s proposals will drive such groups underground and that no one will know any longer where danger lurks – because even the Muslim community won’t know.

They are upset at the deportations and we talk about the pros and cons. I suggest that if they found the need to ban groups from the Mosque – then you could see the potential need to ban certain groups and to deport certain people. I think the difference is that the offending groups were given the opportunity under warning to stop what they were doing or they would be banned. Perhaps that would be a better proposal then just banning and creating an underground and martyrs.

These are difficult and challenging times. I generally find being myself and sticking to my guns steers me well through most situations regardless of what those challenges are. It is never any use saying something you don’t believe and agreeing with something just because you know that someone wants you to. You just have to say what you really think whilst being sensitive to how other people feel from their perspectives. It’s not rocket science.

And then I trudge homewards. I am actually still working until next Tuesday – but in terms of blogging – I will be taking my usual mid-year break and will be back around mid-September. So – see you then – in what will undoubtedly be a lively period in British politics.

Housing problems in Haringey

Posted on by

Surgery all morning. (One blog reader asked if all the surgeries I do mean I’m a doctor. In case you don’t know – I’m not at the operating table, but rather it’s an advice session people come to, so they can talk to me in person, face-to-face about an issue they need help with).

I cannot count the number of people who come with housing misery stories – too many people in one room, appalling conditions, etc – and the points they need to qualify for re-housing always seem to change just as they are about to achieve the required number.

Today was no exception. One couple had been in private accommodation which got flooded so they had to move out to stay with the woman’s mother. Two children later and sleeping all four in one room, they got within six points of being re-housed – when the goalposts moved. Years later they are still there

I asked if they had thought of renting in the private market – but they said it was too expensive and their daughter was at a local school and the mother helped with childcare – all very valid of course.

However, as I said to them, if the Council were to tell you that realistically you are unlikely to get re-housed for another ten years – might you then decide to move further out where it is cheaper, even though you have to change your daughter’s school and lose the easy and convenient help being with your mother brings? Yes – they said. And therein lies a huge problem – people are not able to make informed decisions about what to do as they live in a world of ever-shifting, non-delivered promises.

Of course, some do eventually get there – which leads me to another conclusion about the system we have: the system itself creates problems. For example – you get more points if you have extra criteria that count. One that whisks across my surgery desk regularly is a doctor’s letter confirming depression or asthma or whatever – and the more illnesses and the more severe the more points! Now of course this is right in a way because need increases – but as with all the systems it seems to encourage people to be less able and discourages people from battling for better health.

Conversely, it leaves people who manage through adversity worse off. I saw one woman, a single mother bringing up four children in inappropriate accommodation for 18 years, but with no qualifying ‘extras’ and doing a great job keeping all their heads above water. She will probably never get re-housed because she is determined to cope with it all regardless. Perverse incentives all over the place!

Hornsey Central Hospital site

Posted on by

Visit the Mental Health Trust on the St Ann’s Hospital site. Haringey has the longest inpatient stays in London but it does a very low re-admission rate compared to other authorities. So – what I take from that is that the Government needs to be very careful about its push to shove people out of in-patient facilities towards care in the community. While I am sure that being at home and not institutionalised is a laudable t aim, if the patient isn’t ready and the support networks are not adequate then we will see more and more problems on street or left for the police to deal with.

The other issue that struck me was the number (and cost) of secure beds that we pay for and that extraordinary numbers of people with mental health problems who end up in prison (also expensive) as opposed to getting preventative care prior to getting hospitalised or imprisoned. This resonates with my experience of warning after warning to the council or police that a local person is threatening neighbours etc. The authorities are always saying they cannot do anything until something happens. Eventually, the person assaults someone. Then they are put in prison and/or evicted. When they come out – they are found accommodation (if they are lucky) and the whole cycle starts all over again with new neighbours.

So – more early intervention and prevention needed. Otherwise we are just going to be creating more arrests, more problems, more misery.

I also have an appointment with the Primary Care Trust (PCT). Main issue on the agenda for me is the news (known for some time but not released to us mere mortals) that the future plans for the redevelopment of the Hornsey Central site are in jeopardy. Haringey Council has pulled the plug on their part of the proposals for the site and has, in the most ad hoc of fashions, decided not to proceed with the care home facilities. This leaves the PCT up the creek as they need the funding from that to fund the other community health services to be offered.

They have come up with a possible way of funding it. I’m not supposed to say publicly what it is yet (though can’t quite see why) – it is quite controversial and supposedly ‘commercially sensitive’. I think they need to be bolder and work with the community on this funding problem.

Local campaigners, myself and others have been at this for years and years. We campaigned against closure originally. Continued through the wilderness years. But when the PCT was set up relations improved with campaigners. Now Haringey Council has jeopardised all of this by pulling the rug out.

The PCT was planning to present the options to their board in September. I suggested to them that rather than go to the board and then to a public meeting thereafter when their possibly controversial proposals were a ‘fait accompli’ it would be much better to share with the key stakeholders the challenges they faced and the options available and then go to a public meeting to genuinely consult. The acting Chief Exec, Geoff Sandford, said he would give that suggestion serious consideration. I hope he does!

Mental health issues locally

Posted on by

I am on a mini-mission to explore the mental health arena in Hornsey & Wood Green. Quite a high percentage of people who come to my surgery are in difficulties – whether with housing issues, neighbour disputes, benefits or whatever – and it seems to me that they have wandered into these difficulties because of mental health issues and been caught in a downward spiral. A commonish one – for example – would be someone who has lost their home because of falling into arrears through being hospitalised for a mental health problem who cannot then be discharged from the hospital because there is nowhere to go.

So today I visited Mind. Seemed to be an excellent facility – but clearly lacking adequate funding for treatment which involved talking to people: long waits for therapists etc. In fact, that was a repeating theme across all mental health services – that the Government was clearly keener on funding drug therapies rather than talking therapies. The other issue that struck me was the lack of knowledge about how to access them amongst the general public.

New Chief Executive for London Borough of Haringey

Posted on by

Event of the day was going to meet the new temporary Chief Executive hired by Haringey to replace the hastily removed (although the public version is “early retired”) now former Chief Exec, David Warwick. It’s Max Caller – the retired ex-Chief Exec of Hackney. He said he was focusing on two key priorities whilst in Haringey. One is to make sure officers understood that they were there to execute the will of the council. I took this to mean that he had been briefed by the Labour administration as to their reasons for Warwick’s “early retirement” which I have always believed was because he wouldn’t do what Labour told him to do and persevered with his duty to the council rather than to Labour.

Realistically, I don’t expect him to do much more than a holding job. Who would? And that’s part of the stupidity of this whole event – at great cost to the public purse we are now, inevitably, in a holding pattern until the new Chief Exec is appointed. Even more stupidly – it looks as if Labour are going to make that appointment a few months prior to the local elections next May – which means if Lib Dems take over the council as we plan – they will have a Chief Exec chosen by Labour to carry out their new administration. Of course – we are in the realm of ifs and buts – but it’s not great timing and could mean, I assume, a clause in any contract that states it needs to be ratified by the new administration (whomever that is) in due course. Oh – well – can’t deal with every eventuality!

Working 9 to 5

Posted on by

Working an ordinary nine-hour day feels like absolute luxury. Now parliament is not sitting I am not starting at 6am and finishing after 10pm – but just working roughly 9 to 5; it’s a doddle. Today – apart from paperwork etc – I went into Parliament to have lunch with my staff. They are all new and I wanted to spend a bit of time with them before I depart for my break on the 16th August.

Robin Cook's death

Posted on by

I prepared for media interviews on Blair’s blurtings – i.e. the proposed new terror laws. However, the shocking news of Robin Cook’s death bumps me off all the scheduled slots – appropriately.

The terror laws proposals will be around for quite a while but the untimely departure of Robin Cook needs proper respect. I am absolutely shocked by the news. Partly because I had suddenly joined his world – a world I had observed him in for years and he sat roughly opposite me in the Commons. Partly because he was not much older than me.

Partly because he looked slim and reasonably fit. Partly because I had been really looking forward to hearing his legendary oratory skills firsthand. But mostly because we needed his voice from the Labour benches – a voice which commanded respect and which rang out as Labour’s conscience – an echo from a bygone era when principles meant something.

Terrorism, CPZs and getting people back to work

Posted on by

Not a whole lot to report as largely confined to sick bed, with much time spent watching the news. I observed Hazel Blears, whom I shadow in Parliament – she was starting a round of visits to hard to reach Muslims (as opposed to the usual spokespersons) in towns across the country. Good idea – but why have we waited so long? So much air time has been given to the extremist views of groups that most Muslims have scant regard for. This emphasis has contributed to the fevered atmosphere and probably encouraged them even more. I get into trouble with our press office as I couldn’t go to do interviews on the weekend and missed calls to do the Today program – separated from my phone which unhelpfully was set on silent downstairs in the kitchen – where I wasn’t.

Terrorism on the TV news is interwoven with man floating around the heavens with DIY tools trying to repair a spaceship. I so wouldn’t like to be one of those astronauts. I would be convinced I was going to die on re-entry and even more shaky about making makeshift repairs on the hoof. I wish them well on their return. I know it’s expensive – but I love space exploration. It’s a frontier – and we don’t have that many – and it’s so good to lift your eyes above the daily grind – and the horrors of how to deal with terror in our midst.

Al Qaeda’s No 2 appears in a video broadcast by Al Jazeera saying basically that we in London are targets because Tony went to war in Iraq. Well – there are many reasons I believe Tony should go – and indeed Iraq is one of them. However, it cannot come at the behest of an enemy. And – he has just been re-elected to government by the people of this country (a democracy, however flawed the voting system). Opportunism by Al Qaeda is no way to decide our country’s governance.

I am more concerned by the proposals Tony came forward with yesterday – the new terror laws are draconian but more importantly may be unworkable. We British (and that includes everyone!) pride ourselves on our tolerance and fair play and many feel that our tolerance has spawned monsters – or allowed them to spawn.

And so we face one of the greatest challenges of our time – how can we tolerate the intolerant? We clearly feel our good nature has been abused – so the conundrum: how do we retain our essence of free speech and fair play when others don’t abide by the rules of that particular game?

I am not automatically against any new laws on terror – but I do feel we generally have enough laws.

On incitement to terrorism – define terrorism. On deportation – Charles Clarke to be the deciding factor? Arbiter of who stays and who goes? And let us assume we currently (for the most part and giving them the benefit of the doubt) have a benign government – but… And what are the criteria? And why should we ban those who are banned in the US? We are a different country and what the US finds unacceptable we should examine very carefully – not automatically jump to their tune.

And as for our ‘arrangements’ with countries where human rights are an issue – and so raising problems with us deporting people to those countries – who will monitor those ‘agreements’? Countries with poor records on human rights are not going to change because of a piece of paper.

One break from this issue – on Thursday evening I leapt from my sick-bed to go to a CPZ (controlled parking zone) meeting. This one came off the back of a petition from residents asking for one in three or four roads in the very west of Haringey, affected significantly by the introduction of a CPZ on the Barnet side of the border in East Finchley.

The Labour Executive member is there and the senior council officer. Everyone has their say. There are the usual rants about Haringey Council using CPZs as a milch cow. Not often I stand up for the council – but Haringey’s charges at GBP25 per annum for a resident permit are the cheapest in London. But overall the meeting is very positive – and the outcome is an agreement to proceed next year to a two-zone consultation.

There was a huge area consulted on in 2003 – and as with all large CPZ consultations, those few with the existing problem wanted one but the vast tract of people in the rest of the consultation who did not have a problem did not. Anyway – a successful meeting and we will see how that one proceeds.

One bloke raised the issue of roads where lots of people have off-street parking and therefore not needing to park would vote ‘no’ to a proposal and therefore unbalance the result unfairly. I used a – what I believe (!) – is a really good example of how they might approach such an issue.

I have just had the consultation on the proposed extension to the Highgate Village CPZ. Most of our road (including me) has off-street parking – and there are only very limited on-street parking available for those residents without anyway. One resident of the street called meeting to discuss the consultation. I couldn’t go – but he posted the minutes. Firstly – they agreed to get the council officer down to see if the on-street parking spaces could be increased by slightly altering the design etc – and that could happen. Secondly – those residents in the street who were desperate for the extension (because everyone parks in our road) made their case to us, their neighbours, to all vote for the CPZ as their lives would be impossible without a CPZ as they were not luck (as the rest of us were) to have off-street parking. As good neighbours – we all supported those in need. Good community spirit and lack of selfishness!

On Friday I did my surgery at Wood Green library until lunchtime as usual – and then went off to meet Haringey Alzheimer’s Society who wanted to introduce themselves to me. Strangely – Haringey Council and Haringey Primary Care Trust don’t fund them – whereas that is how most local branches are funded and needless to say they need funding after next year.

Then I meet Bob Cottingham of the Highgate and Muswell Hill pensioners group. I think Bob is fantastic and whilst he himself says that age is slowing him down (I was too polite to ask his!), his mind is still as sharp as a razor. Apart from discussing the new Pensioners’ Charter (which he will send to me) we have an intense discussion about the Middle East, Jenny Tonge and terrorism.

As ever with the Middle East – my view has always been right down the middle – a homeland for Palestine and security and safety for Israel. My views generally make me no friends with either lobby as both have strangely enough a kind of Bush approach – that you’re with ’em or against ’em. I will continue to listen to all arguments – but to date remain convinced that the rights and wrongs of history deliver us nowhere – and any solution will have to deliver enough of what each side wants to have a flying chance of success.

I then dash off to ‘Working Links’, an organisation involved in helping the long-term unemployed back into work. I have to say – fabulous organisation. This one is a private/public partnership – I know, wash my mouth out with soap given my past comments about other private/public partnerships. But if it works – use it. I am not ideologically committed to absolutes – except in the case of particular public services – but this seems a good place to bring in private expertise.

As you walk through the door – the environment sings optimism and enthusiasm – upbeat, modern, clean and bright. But as in all things (at least that’s my view) the success of such projects rests entirely with the staff. It’s people – it’s always people. And the young consultants’ who ran each section were all absolute stars. Their two directors were equally enthusiastic and had clearly been responsible for creating this beneficial atmosphere.

They basically take people from a number of sources and spend 26 weeks supporting a tailor made individual package to help them back to work. Hurrah! Ten out of ten to them. I cannot bear seeing people who hav
e
just become so dependent on the state to sort their life that they no longer even think of doing things for themselves or getting out of the forlorn situations that have become their lives.

Outside of the box

Posted on by

I made a visit to the Arbours Crisis Centre in Crouch End this week. Clientsare referred here from all over the country, nay world.

Arbours is an establishment working in the mental health sphere which doesn’tfit – doesn’t fit into categories thatwould encourage the Government, Haringey Council or any specific body to fund it. And yet it does valuable work andhas a world-wide reputation.

I was ushered into a lounge with comfy sofas, tea laid out and agolden-coloured dog. The therapists and clients came and sat and talked tome about the place. I couldn’t tell who was who to start – which iscertainly a good sign of treatment working well!

It is modelled on being a house – or as near to a normal house as ispossible. Clients and therapists live together in the house. The days arefilled with individual or group work. The clients have keys and can comeand go at will.

Arbours concentrates on relationships – and clearly has highly devoted andcommitted therapists working to bring those who have had long malfunctionswith the world we know back into it – with some success. It can only takesix clients, maximum, at a time.

Being so outside the box of traditional mental health treatment approaches,funding is a struggle. And perhaps of even more concern is the Governmentbeing unable to treat them as a one-off. So many targets and programs andinitiatives and partnerships and jargon and more jargon – but when anexcellent project stares it in the face which doesn’t fit the bureaucraticboxes, the Government is so often like a rabbit stuck in headlights, frozenin action and not knowing what to do.

It’s a bit like Red Gables. This is a fantastic family centre also inCrouch End which Labour councillors want to close. The Government isfunding 18 new child centres in the borough – but because Red Gables is inthe ‘wrong’ area and doesn’t fit the criteria precisely – rather than makeRed Gables on of the eighteen and celebrate this exemplar facility, theyplan to close it down. Local campaigners (and the Ham & High) arefighting hard to prevent this happening.

Red Gables and Arbours seem to be two facets of the same problem – they aremuch loved and successful services, but they don’t fit thecentral Labour model of what should be done where and how – and so thefunding flows elsewhere.

I don’t (yet) know enough in detail about the Arbours Crisis Centre to besure of the right way forward, but with so many problems with the provisionof mental health facilities, it seems daft to not be supporting one likethis. The original idea of “care in the community” had many good points -getting rid of those Dickensian type near jail like facilities for peoplewho need treatment not gaol. But so often, the question now is, “where isthe care?”.

The reopening – thanks to two years of campaigners’ efforts, of Canning Crescent, one of the two mental health day care centres which Haringey closed is a step in the right direction but it opened being able to support far fewer residents than before.

When Parliament comes back in the autumn – and ministers are availableagain for questioning and prodding in the chamber, I want to pursue theseissues.

Quite a few mental health care professionals have come my way since theelection to alert me to the mayhem going on in this area and my five yearson the Metropolitan Police Authority demonstrated palpably how much thepolice are left to deal with the results when our care systems fail. Iwould welcome more input on this – so if anyone reading this has a tale totell in terms of good or poor treatment in this area, please contact me.