Tag Archives: crime

Care in the community and crime in the community

Posted on by

Surgery all morning. The last case was quite challenging. Obviously no details – but in overview – a woman came because her son, 13 years old and black, had been stopped by the police and asked to account for what he was doing. He and some friends were described as hiding in the grounds of public building playing hide and seek. Nothing came of it and the police had written to the mother following her complaints to say that they accepted her son’s explanation. End of story. Except – that although there is no police record or criminality etc – the boy’s details will remain on the database as having been stopped and asked to account.

As we went through what had happened, the woman became extremely agitated and before long completely hysterical, sobbing and shouting and weeping and wailing. What was at cause of this was a mixture of indignation that her boy had been stopped at all and that the police shouldn’t be allowed to stop a 13 year old and ask for details (she said they intimidated her son to get them), that the details filled in on the Stop and Search form were inaccurate and that he would be down in police records and this would count against him throughout his life as black boys have the odds stacked against them.

It is one of those situations where I just use enough authority to try and bring calm. I know theoretically people used to say you are meant to slap someone who is hysterical around the face and the shock is supposed to bring them back to their senses. However, I hardly think that a viable or acceptable solution in this day and age! I can just see the headlines. What was the most difficult was that she couldn’t hear anything I was saying. And in fact I thought she had a good point.

It sort of relates to my work on DNA where I am fighting to bring some rationality and fairness to what gets retained by the police when someone is innocent. Likewise, her boy was innocent. She has the letter from the police saying so. But because the police stopped him, his details will remain forever on the database and this may well somehow count against him at a later date and in another context.

So I will pursue this. Because if there is any risk that retained details on an innocent black boy might one day mean that he is prevented from something – a job or a place at university because somehow that information is available – then it should not be retained on record. I will be writing to the police chief to find out what happens to such records, why they keep them and whether there is a particular reason for this boy’s details to be kept. We will see.

There is a whole surveillance society being created at the moment – and we have to be sure that the balance between our civil liberties and catching criminals is not only a fair one – but an agreed one!

From surgery make my way to Highgate Primary School where I am talking to about 30 children from the school council and school newspaper about climate change and recycling – and how lovely it was to be surrounded by enthusiastic youngsters who peppered me with lots of questions and who clearly understood already the need to care about what we use and how we use it and the dangers that faced us.

More fascinating for them – was the fact that this was my old primary school! Neither the head nor the teachers had realised that this was indeed my own Alma Mater! And what memories it sparked. I was describing to Anthony – the teacher in charge of this project – and we didn’t use first names when I was there- that we had had a boys’ playground and a girls’ playground. And he laughed at the idea of gender playgrounds – but that’s how it was. And I remembered all my old teachers’ names. Also, the head was called Mrs Ruby Jobson (I think) and I remember her calling my mother in for a chat because my mother was not a fan of education and thought you should get out into the world and work as soon as possible. She herself had left school at 13 to train under a milliner – which she hated. Anyway – Mrs Johnson called her in and told her that her little girl was quite clever and advised that I sit for a scholarship. My mother reluctantly agreed. But the interesting thing is that we hadn’t done any algebra and apparently you needed to be able to do algebra to sit the exam. So the Headmistress sat me in her own office for six weeks and tutored me personally. I sat the exam. I got the scholarship. And the rest is history. So – an unexpected walk down memory lane!

Then I get a call from a reporter from Radio 4’s Today programme who wants to come and interview me post the fabulous Dunfermline by-election result – as Haringey is one of those councils that is mooted may fall to the Lib Dems. It’s a program to do with what is happening and why in Labour’s heartlands. So he comes to the Three Compasses pub (where my office is upstairs) and I am sitting downstairs having a coffee with my 3 o’clock appointment – Ian Grant – from Open Door.

Open Door is voluntary organisation part funded by state and the rest by raising funds and it has a team of councillors that work with 13 to 24 year olds with mental health problems. One of the projects they are doing, and which they want to promote more widely, is support for parents of teenagers with mental health problems as there is nothing available. The other gap is care for 18 – 21 year olds who often seem to fall between two stools. I am particularly cross about the lack of resource or interest in mental health.

Firstly, neighbour disputes are often mental health based issues and often crime in the community is because care in the community doesn’t work. The police and the prison system end up dealing with what are mental health issues – and of all the under-funding – talking therapies are the lowest in the food chain!! We did actually have an opposition debate this week in Parliament for the first time on mental health for over eight years. And Charles Clarke in his statement yesterday on offenders doing community sentences did mention in passing that the government will be bringing forth legislation in the mental health area. Anyway – the reporter put his tape recorder on and taped a bit of that meeting too.

Then I did the interview – and yes – Labour heartlands will fall (I hope) and he was particularly interested to know how and why I had managed to overturn a Labour lead of 26,000 in two elections. It’s not hard to understand. Haringey Labour ran a one party state where residents were ignored and treated as voting fodder who would vote Labour whatever. Someone like me comes along and says I will listen and care and do things about your everyday life – yes it matters – clean streets, lighting, paving stones and so on. I have always argued that if you can’t keep a street clean how can you run the country? Of course, over the years the Lib Dems have been working in Haringey – we have succeeded in pushing through improvements – on cleaner streets, recycling, school places – all of which Labour ignored until we became a threat, campaigned on these issues and put them in our leaflets. So – there is every chance that we will take the Council in May. Fingers crossed!

As I finish the interview – the CND lobby arrives. I was expecting about 5 of them – but around 12 -15 turn up. We pass an interesting half-hour and each member (virtually) of the lobby presents their case. For the avoidance of confusion – I am against the replacement of Trident with an equivalent system. For the time being, I believe we need a minimum nuclear deterrent. What does that mean? Enough to make anyone think twice about attacking us. I would wish to move to disarmament – but I think that is unrealistic at this moment in time and am not in favour of unilateral disarmament. I want a debate in Parliament on this issue – and indeed a debate in my own party too. I believe the world has changed and is changing and the way war is waged is also changing. The threats of the past are replaced by different threats now. Our defence needs to adapt
to
these changes.

Police restructuring

Posted on by

Christmas is relentlessly approaching – and I’m not ready! Panic.

But not today. Today am on the front bench for the police restructuring debate in Parliament. As I arrive in my office, I find a sweet message from David Cameron on my email, inviting me to join him. Such a nice boy!

I reply thus:

Dear David,
Thank you so much for your very sweet invitation to come and join you and your colleagues. However, I must decline.
I wondered if the invitation is a sign that you are already feeling isolated. If it gets too bad, you can always come and join us.
Merry Christmas
Lynne

So now we know – all that baloney about new politics – and he is barely out of the starting blocks with a not very clever stunt. No change there.

More importantly – the police debate. The Government wants to merge police forces across the country so that they all average around 4-5,000 police officers – on the basis (they say) that current small forces don’t have the capacity for dealing with serious or organised crime. Now there may be a very good argument for restructuring on the basis of making the specialist resources pooled to serve a wider area than just one force – but wholesale restructuring to the size and distance the Government is talking about is bonkers. Everyone knows that the more local the police force is, the better the intelligence and the policing. To have a Chief Constable (incidentally the Met is not changing) miles and miles away and who has no knowledge of the territory is, as I say, bonkers. And if it isn’t bonkers – then the Government did not put forward any rational arguments to support their proposals. Moreover, the deadline for police forces to put in their views is 23 December and they will have had next to no time for something this momentous.

Mark Oaten was leading for us – as Charles Clarke led for the Government. I ‘covered’ the front bench. The chamber was full of those wishing to make their constituency case – whichever party they were from. Backbench speeches were cut to 10 minutes – and virtually every single speech begged for more time, and asked what benefit would really be delivered from such a merger. None that couldn’t be gotten a better way in my view. However, for reasons I truly do not understand the Government seems determined to railroad this through regardless of common sense or argument and at a punishing pace. And the police are against it – yes, the same police the Government said we had to listen to their advice re 90 days detention or die as a consequence.

More gesture politics from Labour

Posted on by

Back to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Last thing yesterday dozens of amendments were published for the weapons part of the bill. But first we have to finish up on Alcohol Disorder Zones. This is with an argument from the Lib Dem about an absurd bit of the proposals which gives the area proposed for a disorder zone an opportunity to put forward an action plan and sort things out first – but then says that if the Local Authority doesn’t like the way the things are going it can step in and impose the zone anyway. You can’t have a mechanism for giving people a chance to do things the right way and then not give them that period. Unless you’re a Labour Government!

So then we arrive at guns. My Lib Dem No.2 on the Committee (there are only two Lib Dems) is a gun using Scot. He has lawful possession of a number of guns and is expert on the ins and outs of firearms certificates and the like. I have some relationship with alcohol – but none with guns.

We are arguing with the Government on a number of aspects. First there is an issue with tightening up on the transport of guns. As John Thurso points out, if he had his gun locked in his boot (which is the only way you are allowed to transport guns) and he popped out from the car to buy something and his friend was left in the car, he could then be had for this ‘crime’ – and moreover he could get 5 years minimum mandatory sentence for the pleasure – under Labour’s proposals, as currently written.

Latter on I argue against minimum mandatory sentences – partly because we believe law makers should not lay down what should rightly be decided by judges as to particular circumstances of each case, but also because it is another example of Labour being ‘tough’ without thinking things through. In this case, we’d have a dog’s breakfast of some offences having a mandatory five-year minimum sentence but equivalent acts with other firearms had completely different penalties. The whole structure would become a nonsense – and the Government has promised and promised a reviews and consultations – and then nothing. Sentencing is already becoming nonsense with Charles Clarke letting prisoners go because the prisons are too full. It’s all ‘gesture’ and ‘message’ with existing laws not enforced properly and a whole pile of new laws instead.

Anyway – Labour have a right go at me – but I stick to my guns (so to speak)!

We finish around 5pm and will resume where we left off next Tuesday – just before which pagers vibrate to bring us the news that Cameron and Davis will fight it out.

Tackling alcohol problems: Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Posted on by

Five and a half hours in Committee going over the details of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.

Today is alcohol – and we are moving through Drink Banning Orders and Alcohol Disorder Zones. Drink Banning Orders will enable the police and local authorities to stop an individual coming into a certain area because of their ‘criminal or disorderly behaviour’. The trouble, as ever, with Labour legislation is that it is overweening and undefined – that it could easily be abused. For instance – the bill uses the term ‘disorder’. This is very broad and could mean that rather than the powers to ban people being concentrated on just those cases where they are really needed to tackle persistent and serious problems arising from drunkenness, instead that the powers end up being abused to ban people for all sorts of other reasons.

My task is to argue that there needs to be more definition. An example of where this could all go horribly wrong is when one Labour member said something like – you might get someone late at night shouting as they ran down the street drunk. Well – if a single instance of high spirits is all it needs to take away someone’s freedom of movement, then we are going too far. So the challenge is to try and make the Government legislation more exact, more robust and to ensure that the powers given cannot be misused in such a way.

The Government is not minded to listen to reasonable argument – at least not really in this public session. As I understand it they use all the stuff we give them and then bring it back as their own at a latter stage. Which is fine – if a little aggravating. In fact they have already ‘listened’ in that they themselves have brought forth an amendment removing their proposal to imprison an individual who breached a Drink Banning Order. Even they realised that to end up with a 5 year prison sentence for skipping down the street drunk and shouting might be seen as a little over the top.

Later we move onto Alcohol Disorder Zones. These are areas that can be designated by a local authority and the police where there is so much trouble from drinking establishments that they have become no go areas at night. The idea is that establishments within the zone to be designated have an opportunity to put forward a voluntary action plan, and if it works the zone isn’t imposed. But if it fails, it is. An imposed zone means establishments within it will be charged for extra policing or whatever.

The points of contention – given we agree with the principle of the polluter pays – are that good landlords will be treated same as bad, that there are perverse incentives for local authorities to view this as a way of raising money, that anywhere can be designated a Disorder Zone, that designating an area will stigmatise (or even worse, glorifying it for some?) and many, many other arguments about the proposals.

The Government seem not to be interested in anything other than sloganising that ‘we serve the lawful and that this legislation is targeted on the lawless’. Well yes – statement of the bleeding obvious in terms of what everyone wants as an outcome because we all have the same problems. But slogans aren’t the same as effective action. We already have so much legislation that the Government is not using properly regarding drinking and alcohol. It is already illegal to sell drink to the drunk (they never virtually prosecute). Local Authorities can revoke licenses (they rarely do). And new powers which come into force next month give police the powers to shut down premises.

But saying we want a new law gets cheap publicity points in a way that working to use existing laws properly don’t.

Liveliest moment of the day is when Labour MP Stephen Pound exits the backbenches of the Committee to find out who has gone through (or not) in the Tory leadership election that is taking place in the Committee Room next door – very noisily. He comes back and does a little mime – indicating a pregnant stomach and then slitting of throat – it is clear that Ken Clarke has got the chop!

Anyway – leave Parliament around 11pm having had one drink in one of the bars. A Labour member of the Committee was in there and called me over to say how well he thought I was handling it considering I had been thrown in the deep end – which I thought was very kind!

Violent Crime Reduction Bill – first committee stage

Posted on by

I left at the crack of dawn on Thursday to get to Commons at least an hour before having to go into committee for the first session on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. I drive in today – thank goodness – as the radio gradually makes North London aware that the Northern Line is completely closed today.

Preparatory work done, I go to the committee and introduce myself to the Minister (Hazel Blears), who I shadow for the Lib Dems, and the chair – Eric Forth MP. And then we are off. Having had the sense to look how others have started off the sessions, at least I know that I have to stand – or rather indicate that I want to speak after the current speaker by half-shifting out of a sitting position so that the Chair will call me next.

The Minister moves the Programming Motion – which in fact we have agreed anyway the night before – but this is an opportunity to talk about absolutely nothing important for as long as the Chair will tolerate. At least that was my reading of it. The Minister was brief and to the point. The lead Tory was rather more fulsome – and to my surprise made an unprovoked attack on the Liberal Democrats referring to something a colleague had said some time back in another debate on another bill. Aha – I thought – so much for scrutiny of the Bill without the usual political nonsense. But it was just a tiny swipe – not worth worrying about really in the scale of attacks unleashed on us – the increasing scale of which I put down to our increasing success. Then I rise to do my bit – and welcome the Chair, look forward to a rigorous debate, express some concerns about the timing though welcome the Minister’s indication that she will be flexible about it.

Into the debate – and I am moving the first two amendments. In the section of the Bill on Drink Banning Orders (DBO) – which would mean an individual can be banned from a locality for between two months and two years – is to make sure that DBOs are not served on people such as those with mental health issues that mean they are not able to understand the orders and so would be liable to break them because they’re not able to understand them.

I suggest that the court should receive a report on the individual in question’s state of health – so that they can assess whether this falls into extremely vulnerable category. The Conservatives were supportive – though wanted more discretion for the court. My concern was that more discretion would result in the power not being used when it should. The Minister’s argument against us both was basically that it was too much paperwork and bureaucracy. What I hope – and what the Minister promised – is that this element will now be included in the guidance to the legislation when passed. And this is quite common in committee – you put down an amendment to prod the Government, the Government responds (hopefully sensibly!) and then you “ask leave to withdraw the amendment”. This means you don’t have a vote on the amendment itself, but you can submit it again at a latter stage – which is useful if, say, the Government says it will go away and think about an issue so that you know you can return to it latter.

We trudged on for a while longer working through the amendments – and then the time beat us and we had to adjourn until the next session next Tuesday. I know it may not be riveting stuff – but this is how legislation is made. There had been quite a few attacks on the Lib Dems from the Labour back benchers and the Minister during the arguments – mostly trying to suggest that only Labour have drunks lying in their streets and want them cleaned up. Of course – we have lots of problems here in Hornsey & Wood Green that we want cleared up – so that is completely ludicrous. I would have thought the purpose of all this arguing line by line was exactly that – to make sure the legislation is totally effective in targeting those who should be removed from an area – and leaving along and supporting those who might inadvertently be swept up by poorly written laws.

And that’s kind of how it works.

As I went out of Committee Room 12 to make my way to the Commons chamber I looked at my phone to find masses of missed calls. So I sit down outside the room to work through them. Many from TV stations asking me to come and discuss the issues around getting more women into politics. Not surprisingly, this is because of yesterday’s kafuffle. Finish round of calls and go to numerous other meetings including briefing for Any Questions the following night.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Posted on by

Spend a good part of the day going through the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, for which I will be leading for the Lib Dems when it goes through its committee stage in Parliament.

Committee is where legislation is scrutinised line by line. It’s a bit like being a lawyer having to argue the case for each point. Well many of them are lawyers in the Commons – but not me, so am preparing carefully. (The Parliament website has an explanation of how bills go through Parliament and what the stages are).

Then to the Tottenham Law Centre to address their AGM. Interestingly enough they have a motion to change the name to ‘Haringey Law Centre’ as it does serve a much wider catchment than just Tottenham, including serving people in my own constituency. Really good to talk to everyone as so much of the angst that walks through my surgery door is about housing or immigration. Once an individual falls foul of the system in either of these areas (which is easy to do) it isn’t long before it is a legal matter over eviction or deportation. And that’s when I send them onto the CAB or the Tottenham Law Centre. Legal advice is so vital and so expensive, and there has been such a cut back to legal aid, that law centres and citizens’ advice bureaus are absolutely vital!

Holloway Prison

Posted on by

Off to jail – Holloway Prison!

I hadn’t been to a prison before – so slightly wondering what it will be like. My views were probably coloured by the Green Mile and Jailhouse Rock! Holloway was much more akin to an old National Health Hospital. It’s not built in that galleried style that you see so often in films – with cells with bars onto long galleried corridors.

I spent an hour or so with the Governor – who well impressed me. I think he has embraced the sort of attitude that I have towards crime and punishment and showed a real understanding of the issues around rehabilitation, deprivation, and punishment.

A senior officer took me around the various areas for a couple of hours thereafter. They had just opened a first-night reception centre. When women first arrive – there is not only the shock to deal with – but also the worry of what is happening at home, who is looking after the children etc. This centre is set up so that within 24 hours your caseworker deals with all the people or departments you need around housing, childcare, etc. And then you are taken into the main prison. I also went to the mother and baby unit, the lifers section, the segregation section, the resettlement section and I also met with the ‘listeners’. These are about 6 women prisoners who have been trained by the Samaritans to ‘listen’ to their peers who come to them. Suicide is not rare – and these women know what it is like. They don’t offer advice but are there literally to listen.

Talking to them, they were all training or studying so that when their sentences are spent they can get jobs or continue in university or whatever. I was much taken with what can be done to help people change their lives.

At party conference the other week, Mark Oaten (Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary) was floating the idea of all 16 year olds having to do a gap month of community service. This isn’t the misbehaving ones – this is all of them. The idea is to give youngsters a sense of service and a sense of doing something good for the benefit of someone else. Not a bad idea I thought. In an argument with Nick Ferrari (LBC) about this area he was saying he didn’t see why his sons should have to go and “paint old lady’s fences”. But as I said to him, even his wonderful sons might learn a thing or two. Lots of people (who can afford to) send their kids to summer camps and that does the same thing to a degree – but not everyone can afford to or chooses to. We’ll see where Mark gets to with that one.

Then dash to Tottenham football ground to give out Community Chest cheques to the HARCEN annual Conference Community Chest Awards. They had been there all day having their conference. Not a bad job. These are awards as part of a Government funded initiative to empower communities and a bit of dosh always helps.

In fact lots of great groups there doing good, small works in the community. However, there were loads and loads of awards. I had thought there would be about three or something – but the administrator came in with a pile of folders and cheques and I must have given out about 30 cheques and folders to the various recipients – and smiled for a photo with each one. I was really surprised when I asked how much the awards were – as I thought they would be about 50 each given how many there were – but she said they were between one and two thousand pounds! Fun it was.

Crime figures

Posted on by

Up early to be at Sky News crack of dawn to speak for the Lib Dems as the latest crime figures are published today.

There are two sets: the British Crime Survey which is a massive survey of people and how many crimes they have experienced. These figures show overall crime is reducing – including violent crime, which is down by 11%.

The other set of figures published is from the police, and shows the numbers of crimes recorded by them. As these are absolute figures rather than a survey they might seem more accurate – but they are very dependent on the rules for recording crime and a change in the rules can make a big change in the numbers even if reality hasn’t changed. One example – when the police got much better at taking rape seriously there were big increases in the figures for rape – because they were recording and investigating more – not because there was a big leap in rape.

The recorded crime figures also record crime dropping – but violent crime up 6%. So it is obvious to me that the story will be the difference between these two figures.

As indeed it is!

It strikes me that as 48% of violent crime is alcohol related that the Government might just pause for thought about relaxing the licensing laws and introducing 24 hour drinking just at this moment in time.

The problem with the Government’s Violent Crime Reduction Bill is it does the ‘tough on crime’ bit of the equation – but doesn’t have any measures to address the seemingly British malaise where young people drink themselves to oblivion on a Friday and Saturday night.

Whilst I am personally in favour of changing licensing hours so all the pubs don’t empty out at the same time – the timing of Labour’s licensing plans really isn’t smart.

Spend much of the morning yoyo-ing between the Commons and doing media interviews. Then back to the Commons to gen up on what’s in the papers ready to go back to Millbank to the Beeb for the Daily Politics show with Andrew Neil.

My only encounter thus far with him was during the General Election of 2001 when Sky did a late night program on ‘rising stars’ on which I went with a Labour and Conservative equivalent. At that time I was a distant third hoping to rise to second in the election. I remember Neill saying something derogatory about the Lib Dems – like well you’re only a Lib Dem so who cares what you say. And I remember giving as good as I got! He loved it.

The other thing I remember about that night was outside of the studio I spoke to a psephologist who was pontificating on the election and is likely swings and directions. He asked me what I was hoping for – and I said ‘obviously to win – but a good second would be an achievement in itself’. He said he would eat his hat if I even got into second place. I swept magnificently into second place – but sadly couldn’t remember this guy’s name to recontact him with a view to watching said spectacle of hat-eating ceremony!

Anyway – today we will be discussing Muslim communities and retired people abroad getting winter fuel allowances. Neill starts by having a go (as it is the last day of the Parliamentary term) about the so-called long holidays MPs have.

Bollocks to that – I have only had a couple of days off since going back after Christmas, I do a seven-day week, and weekdays are usually 10 to 18 hour days. So pooh to you Andrew Neill. He is unmoved – and obviously thinks all MPs do nothing. He says he will come and check on me in the constituency and I say just fine!

I think the only way political pundits will be happy is if we have no holidays, reduce our pay, cut our staff and office allowances and expenses and I hear that Marks and Sparks do a good line in hair shirts!

David Davis joins us for a section of the show and for reasons that remain a complete mystery to me spends the entire time of his interview refusing to admit that he is going to stand for the leadership of the Tory Party. Completely bonkers.

Rush back to Commons for lunch with someone who wants to discuss the future of the Liberal Democrat party with me! My researcher appears to tell me that 4 bombs have gone off – or more accurately 4 detonators have gone off which appear to have failed to detonate the bombs themselves – thank God. Much evidence will therefore be available to the police and security forces.

ID cards and knife crime

Posted on by

Spent day ping-ponging between my home and Millbank to do TV interviews covering the imminent debate on ID cards. Buggered up my Sunday – but well worth it as absolutely passionately against this misguided and authoritarian legislation.

Meanwhile, a bit of whimsy … One of the big problems behind knife crime and the culture that goes with it is that having a knife is seen as cool. How to break this culture? Why not issue a knife to every MP … that would be the death knell of coolness for the poor knife!