Tag Archives: crime

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Posted on by

Big day – as ‘my’ Bill (the Violent Crime Reduction Bill) is getting its second reading today. I won’t have to lead on the floor of the Commons as our Shadow Home Secretary, Mark Oaten, will do that. But I will have to speak and get a grip on the debate so that when I lead for the Lib Dems as the bill goes through its committee stage I will know what I am doing and where the debate is.

(If you’re wondering what second readings and committee stages are, there’s an explanation of how laws pass through Parliament at www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/legislation.html).

But first I have lunch with the Evening Standard lobby correspondent. He seems really OK. Have worked with lots of journalists from the ES and they have all been great – so far.

Then (barring quick press conference on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill) off to the chamber for the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Basically this bill tries to address the twin rising problems of alcohol and weapons. In a typically Labour way – some of it is right, but some of it is gesture ‘tough on crime’ politics.

For example – there is a proposal to stiffen the laws around the manufacture, sale and carrying of imitation firearms. I totally agree with the general intent of this. However – the bit on carrying states that the sentence will be raised from 6 months to 12 months. So I make an intervention whilst Charles Clarke (Home Secretary) is introducing the proposals to ask why a 6 month stiffening? What work has been done to estimate the reduction in carrying that that particular length of sentence will deliver?

Basically – it’s all speculative says Charles. Hmm – not an impressive way to make laws! (You can read the exchange in Hansard).

OK – so what would I have done to establish this before guestimating an addition to the sentence? I would have first established how many people had been done for carrying and what sentences they had (in fact I have a Parliamentary Question down on this). I would have gone back to them to survey whether they had any idea of what sentence was on the books, how much of deterrent it was, etc.

Anyway – the main area of disaster in these proposals is the plan for Alcohol Disorder Zones. If there is a lot of drunken, abusive and criminal behaviour in a particular location, the Local Authority and the Police will have the power to create an area where all those inside deemed to have alcohol as their main trade (a minefield in itself) will have eight weeks in which to produce an action plan and improve. But if they don’t – a levy will be imposed to pay for extra policing.

Fine in principle – polluter pays. Love it. But – good landlords will be treated same as bad (and probably move to a better area). The area will get a name as a ‘no go’ area – and people (consumers) will stop going there. Property values will plummet. And so on.

So – sounds a good idea at first – but not thought through. But as I say – the thrust of the Bill to get a grip on the British malaise of drinking yourself to oblivion on a Friday night is right. But as ever with Labour – there is no other side to the equation: examining why people drink themselves stupid, why it is a status symbol to carry a knife or a gun – and so on.

When the great reforming legislation on drink driving and wearing a seatbelt came into being – the Government put immense resource behind the message it was sending out about irresponsible behaviour. The resource was both in enforcement of the legislation yet also the huge educational and advertising campaigns that accompanied the change in the law. Labour is still shallow in its intent and will. Right message – lack of real depth to deliver change!

And I said so in my speech!

The prison population

Posted on by

I co-host a talk by American Author Michael Jacobson on downsizing prisons, who has a new book out. He has run jails in the US and argues that the costs of expanding prisons to take ever more prisoners takes money away from services such as education and health – and so causes more crime rather than cutting it.

I listen to my co-hosts (Labour and Tory) ramble on about how they believe in education, training, rehabilitation and how prison and punishment are not the way forward.

As someone said to me afterwards – how I restrained myself from having a go at them was a miracle! Having just emerged from an election with the most outrageous attacks on me/us for being soft on crime because we believe you need to do more than just lock people up – how they had the balls to pretend they believed in all of the stuff Lib Dems believe in was extraordinary. Both Tory and Labour did nothing but bang the authoritarian drum on this during the election. But conveniently left their drums at home for this event!

Violent Crime Bill

Posted on by

The Violent Crime Bill is published today. I am the Lib Dem spokesperson on this in the Commons and will be taking it through the committee stage.

The bill is to bring in measures to address the rising problems around replica guns, the age at which you can buy a knife and binge-drinking. All very real problems – so Lib Dems are broadly in favour of the measures – with some heavy provisos around the detail, which I guess are where our amendments will be as we go through the legislation.

A while back, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), I went to visit the Met’s firearms division SO19 to see what armed officers do, learn about their training and see what they have to confront. There is now this amazing video / computer technology that puts you in a crime situation – and you see something happen, maybe a gun turn on you, and in a split second have to decide what action to take. Then it flashes up on the screen whether you were right to shoot or wrong – or indeed whether you are dead. Salutary experience for me. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t get it right one hundred percent of the time. And I certainly couldn’t tell the difference between a replica gun and a real one.

Moreover, I went into the arms room where they have dozens of guns and their replicas – side by side in pairs – from revolvers to rifles. These are not some near approximation for the real thing. These replicas are indistinguishable from the real thing.

So – I am supportive of banning such replicas – so long as the law isn’t an ass. What I mean is that it has to be enforceable at the same time as not interfering with the harmless – such as props for plays. Let’s hope the legislation can cope with drawing this distinction in a workable manner.

On the age being raised to 18 to buy a knife – I think the government will get itself in a tangle. There is a great debate to be had about the age of majority. What can and should one be allowed to do at 16, 17 or 18? However, the notion that a couple can marry and have children at 16 but not buy a knife may well be in danger of being the wrong solution to a very real problem.

I regard knife crime as seriously as I regard gun crime and do not understand why knife crime carries lesser sentences. That is an area I would like to see tackled alongside a wide debate about the age of majority.

And then there is binge-drinking. Perhaps the government needs to pause before going ahead with 24 hour lifestyles. In the end – it is probably right – but there are clearly a number of drawbacks that need attention before that goes ahead.

But the real point about all of the above – they may go some way to satisfying the ‘tough on crime’ but they don’t even begin to touch on being ‘tough on the causes of crime’. What is it in our society that makes young men aspire to criminality as a way of gaining status with their peers? Why does carrying a knife mean more than doing well at school? Why do young people want to drink themselves into oblivion on a Friday night?

A change in culture is the hardest thing to achieve – because it takes massive effort at all levels for a long time. Sometimes laws can deliver – drink driving and wearing seatbelts are examples. But there was so much more than legislation to them. There was a real underlying resource poured into campaigning and advertising – and that is what shifted the culture when combined with enforcement.

So tough laws can deliver – but not if they are only there for appearance sake.

Muswell Hill crime meeting

Posted on by

7am start on emails having done fifty sit ups. Given the amount of exercise I get during and election delivering leaflets and the amount of weight I lose from being on the run – I have decided that I might as well have a flat stomach by May 5!

Inevitably during a campaign the blog content of my daily efforts will be repetitive in terms of 1) delivering leaflets 2) canvassing 3) stuffing envelopes and 4) answering emails, letters and the phone.

The interest I guess will come from the twists and the turns, the media and the national campaign.

So today was unremitting emails and paperwork all morning. Then for light relief three hours of leaflet delivery midst beautiful sunshine – interspersed with hail, lightening and thunder. We (Monica and I) were leafleting a really up-market part of the constituency – with mega houses and tree-lined drives. Only issue with long drives is that it takes twice as long to deliver as normal roads.

At 7.30pm arrive at the British Legion in Muswell Hill Road for the consultation with key stakeholders in Muswell Hill. I am the lead councillor on the roll out of the police’s Safer Neighbourhoods Scheme in Muswell Hill. This is what we have all been waiting for – 6 police personnel, ring-fenced for Muswell Hill on a permanent basis. Hurrah!

This is a real ‘good news’ story – and tonight is about asking the chairs of residents’ associations and neighbourhood watches what they believe are the priorities for the area.

I have raised already one of the key problems for residents of St James’s Lane and Connaught Gardens – which is kids hanging around – and in the case of St James’s Lane acting quite aggressively to passers by.

I have been in email correspondence with Stephen Bloomfield, the local Commander and suggested to him that we try Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs). Yes – we can have patrols (if we are lucky) and that will move them on – temporarily. But I am for long term resolution – not just pushing a problem into someone else’s back yard.

ABCs were pioneered in Lib Dem run Islington with the Met and involve the police, the parents, the children, and other partners from education, social services, housing – whatever the problems need. Parents and children sign up to an agreed way forward for behaviour and have regular meetings to discuss any difficulties etc. These have worked stunningly well – so much so that Labour Ministers Charles Clarks and Hazel Blears are now advocating this as best practise across the land.

Stephen Bloomfield emails back that this seems just the right sort of case to be taken forward with ABCs but he isn’t promising anything until he knows more.

So at the meeting, the team are there and the issue is raised and we will see what path they take.

One of the most positive and optimistic evenings in my memory in terms of policing (outside of the re-opening of Muswell Hill Police front counter).

Come home to find phone message from Andrew Gilligan – so call him back. Piece in Standard will come out on Monday. He asks how I am getting on – and I say well. Lots of emails from Labour supporters telling me not only that they are going switch from Labour for the first time in their lives and vote for me – but why.

Interestingly – the reasons are not just the war. Iraq certainly leads the field – but the disappointments with Labour are many. It’s feeling very good on the doorsteps – especially as former Tory and Green supporters are getting the tactical voting message that to beat Blair’s candidate they need to vote Lib Dem in Hornsey and Wood Green.

Crime policy launch

Posted on by

Meet our press officer outside Millbank and we go and do SKY. They have decided not to do a live feed but a pre-record – that was just fine. They edit and take what they want – usually about a nano-second by the time it actually reaches the news.

Tougher on ITV – live to camera – and a proper grilling on our policies. Apart from mangling one set of words – I was pleased because they had gone tough and thrown every possible attack at me – and I lived! I always reckon it’s been a good day if I’m alive at the end of it.

Then off to the crime manifesto launch – all good stuff. It’s me, Charles K and Mark Oaten. Now the big boys have arrived, I become relatively ornamental. I say my piece but Charles and Mark, being the national figures, field the questions – very well I thought.

I go into City Hall to clear my paperwork and emails there and spend some hours finishing a variety of chores.

Then back to a stuffing evening at my house. I like stuffing evenings as it is a mindless task leaving us activists to gossip.

In the middle of all that has been going on, I have had to truck backwards and forwards to the vet several times. My dog, Purdy, ate a whole chicken carcass (bones and all) overnight on Good Friday. It was the first time I had cooked a proper meal since Christmas – and the oven broke. So moral of that story is – I should never cook!

Vet’s fees need a bit of scrutiny is my overriding thought for the day. I have insurance – but the cost is exorbitant. Must have a look at this in due course … but too tired tonight.

Fighting crime in Highgate

Posted on by

Meet two women in Muswell Hill who contacted me about an idea they have for helping mothers cross the barriers back into work. Brilliant idea – as ever – I am enthused and will try and find funding streams for them to tap into. Funding is always the key (and the full stop to brilliant ideas).

In the afternoon, meet the key senior officers involved in the Muswell Hill (and a bit of Fortis Green) Safer Neighbourhood Team which is about to roll out. Hurray!

This is what residents want. Dedicated neighbourhood teams on the beat. But we need them everywhere – otherwise you get displacement of crime.

And what about poor old Highgate – split between three boroughs? I am working on bringing that together – and have made some progress following my lobbying of the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). A methodology and trial is afoot in Bexley – and then once the wrinkles are ironed out there the model can be used for Highgate and any other areas of London where there is a neighbourhood split across different boundaries.

Crime figures and taxi fares

Posted on by

Meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) committee that I sit on which monitors the Met performance. Bit of a barney over crime recording. The Met always try and have it both ways. When there is a bad stat – such as recently the rise of violent crime – we are told that the increase is not real – it is due to better recording and better reporting. On the other hand when the stat is good and crime rate is dropping – then of course the drop is real and the recording is totally accurate.

Afterwards, have my surgery at Muswell Hill library. Interesting case where a guy developing a site is going to appeal after his planning application was refused. I had backed residents in opposing the application as, from what I saw of the original drawings, the new house would be over dominant, over development etc. This chap not surprisingly disagreed! He disputed some of the pictures used previously. Am doing some research to try and find where the truth lies on this one.

Then off to the local branch meeting of the Liberal Democrats – but have to do a quick radio interview from the chair’s bedroom on arrival. I am attacking Mayor Ken for raising taxi fares.

Together with the tube and bus fare rises (above inflation and breaking his election promises) the cost of using public transport is rising fast in London. And this from the man who made his name on ‘fares fair’! And to add insult to injury, raising black cab fares can only serve to drive more people into unlicensed mini-cabs – which we are supposed to be trying to exterminate. Not clever! But Ken is short of cash. He’ll probably try and put a tax on walking next!

Police performance stats

Posted on by

Performance Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) where for the last few years I have slogged over the multitude of statistics that pour forth from the Metropolitan Police service as we hold them to account. Of course, the trick here is that the goalposts are always moving (the Met and the Government are always moving them to be more accurate) so we rarely find ourselves comparing like with like.

I have a long wrangle with a Met officer about violent crime. Violent crime stats are up. But the police say that they are recording them better so more are recorded – and the other defence is that the rise is the result of increased police activity.

It is clear – that nothing is clear. Why do I always get the feeling that performance stats are about protecting the Met and not about trying to deal with the real state of affairs – at least not publicly? Later in an informal session about how we can resolve these difficulties, there is an admission on the part of the Met that they cannot bear it when the media get hold of a poor performance stat and make mincemeat of them in say, the Evening Standard.

We (the committee members) basically feel that you have to get real. Continual defensiveness, spin and dumbing down leads to even worse situations where we (the public) lose trust in the police. And we need to trust our police. It’s not unlike Blair over Iraq – you start to doubt everything about the Blair government because you know they spin to avoid consequence and criticism. I think it better to hang out dirty washing. Show how complex policing is and how difficult. Have the debate, take the criticism and move on. Eventually the press will have to cover issues from a different perspective.

DNA testing

Posted on by

Off to Sidcup in Kent for a briefing from the Senior Met Detective in charge of Operation Minstead. In short, this is a police operation to catch a serial rapist of elderly women in South London. The crimes have been committed over the last 12 years and the police have the criminal’s DNA but have not been able to catch him.

My involvement in this case is to do with the so-called ‘voluntary’ collection of DNA to try to catch him. There is a cutting edge technique being used to genetically identify from DNA the genealogical origins of an individual.

In Minstead’s case this is a man between 25 and 40, black and from a particular area / island in the Caribbean. Using this information, the police narrowed down their ‘persons of interest’ from an original 20,000+ to 917 men. The police want to test all their DNA so they can eliminate them from their investigations. Now, not everyone was happy to be tested. If they refused they got a letter from the Met saying that a senior officer would look into the reasons for their refusal and let them know of their decision. If they still refused and there were enough grounds to arrest the refuseniks – they did. This resulted in five arrests – although two men changed their mind at the last moment.

I have a number of concerns around all of these issues. One is the change in legislation which allows the police to keep on record DNA from persons who are taken to a police station even if not arrested or anything. I am also concerned that the word ‘voluntary’ is meaningless as it is clear that what is actually happening – albeit carefully – is mandatory testing. If we’re going to have mandatory testing, there should be a proper debate – and a change in the law and rules – rather than it happening by the backdoor.

In fact a very, very senior Met Officer was talking to me about Minstead at a meeting and, when I voiced my concern over the grey area around what was ‘voluntary’, he said – “Oh voluntary is voluntary – until they say no.” No doubt he would say he was joking. Poor judgement I say.

Another key issue raised is the actual science of genetic identification in this way. It seems to me, following my time looking in detail at the use of stop and search by the police, that any of the mechanisms in the police force that are discretionary – like stop and search – can fall prey to discrimination.

This new science cannot be applied as yet to the white European population. The group is too big and the individual components are as yet unidentifiable. Thus this new forensic ‘miracle’ may have built-in discrimination. To be pursued.

Policing in London

Posted on by

Today was the Met Police Commissioner’s conference where senior bods in the Met (and the Metropolitan Police Authority) gathered to ‘build on our success’ – i.e. plot and plan the way forward.

Sir John Stevens gave his usual stirring story for boys (and girls) speech. He is an absolute master of rallying his troops and motivating them. He’s really more of a politician than most the politicians I know – and better at it.

Myself and local Haringey Commander, Stephen Bloomfield, got an honorary named mention for Muswell Hill police station (see my blog entry for 27 September).

There was much success for him. This included the new “Safer Neighbourhoods” program. Currently it applies in three wards in each London borough, putting six police personnel on our streets, ring-fenced from removal for any other policing purpose.

However, the roll-out of the program faces funding problems. And without a pan-London roll out, there’s a risk that crime is displaced to areas outside the scheme.

Next was a speech from the Chair of the MPA, Len Duval. I have a lot of time for Len – voted for him to be Chair in fact – and time is what you needed today. Len had been given a slot of 15 minutes. Now what you have to understand about the Met is it runs like clockwork to time (if only our rail system did the same). Len made good points – and then remade them – and then veered off at tangents – and then made them again. The upshot being that he overran his slot by about 25 minutes – thus throwing the whole schedule into disarray and losing his audience entirely. Hope someone close to him whispers in his ear for next time.