Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

Time to break the habit of a lifetime and see my name on a ballot paper - and not put a vote next to it!

I'm talking about the poll over at Liberal Democrat Voice on who should be the next Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor. Thanks all those who've put me (as I type) at the top of the poll, but sorry to tell you - I've no interest in putting my name forward for the selection when it kicks off again latter this year.

As for the other names that are listed - Brian Paddick is the one I'd pick. He impressed me when I was serving on the GLA and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) - and as I wrote in another blog post at the time:

When I think of my time seeing the Met up close when I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) for five year - Brian is the one officer I met who I believe really understands and gives weight to some of the problems that are contentious.

Labels: brian paddick, mpa

Spent whole morning and lunchtime at a conference about the future of the Police Consultative Group (PCG) in Haringey. The Met Police Authority are cutting the funding - which is terrible. Haringey's PCG is active, useful and works really well with the local Commander and all the groupings.

There is a very dedicated group of activists involved - and it isn't really fair that they will have funding cut to equalise funding to all PCGs across London. I remember well from my time on the PCG that there were some that local MPA link members said were obsolete, non-functioning and needed to be ended - and then others that are active and quite vibrant like Haringey.

Anyway we all say at tables and had sessions addressing a number of issues around how local people could hold the authorities, politicians and police accountable; about the different levels of engagement; about young people and so on. Reasonably useful - but not sure about whether we reached conclusions.

Even more usefully, I met a couple of guys who work with young people. And one was lobbying me basically to stop politicians paying so much attention to the kids who go off the rails but to pay more to those who are positive role models but who might just need a bit of help or funding to get on - into uni - or whatever. And to spend money on a centre for the kids who are good but just need somewhere to go - not just pay attention and money to the negative.

And actually, that evening I am involved in a crime think tank (or anti-crime more accurately), so I bring it up and get it in to the consultative papers that Lib Dems will debate and take forward.

Labels: crime, mpa

In the evening I am sponsoring and speaking in a panel debate on the clash between journalists/photographers and the police. The panel is meant to be an MP from each of the main parties - Boris Johnson, Austin Mitchell and myself – plus Assistant Police Commissioner Brian Paddick. However, the chair informs me as I arrive that both Boris and Austin have pulled out - leaving me and Brian. Well - it was quite a 'feisty' evening! Brian has rewritten the guidelines for police handling of media - because of the clashes, confiscations of equipment and altercations. The rewriting has some good points, but several journos gave personal accounts of mistreatment by the police - thus putting Brian on the spot. In the end, he accepted that officers do not always walk the talk on such things. Of course, guidelines, as I pointed out, are all very well - it's ensuring that officers at the sharp end observe them. I still think there is a long way to go - and the bad news is that Brian is retiring in the near future.

And when I think of my time seeing the Met up close when I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) for five year - Brian is the one officer I met who I believe really understands and gives weight to some of the problems that are contentious. From his avant garde approach to cannabis when he was commander in Lambeth, to his evidence to the stop and search scrutiny and subsequent work on that within the Met and the guidelines as above. I don't know who will be defender of these things in the Met when he goes.

Labels: boris johnson, brian paddick, mpa

Having come back from Holland last night - swing straight into action with visit to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). First impressions are important - and wow they have nice offices. So when John Wadham tells me that there was a deliberate policy to distance this new organisation from the police and the sort of police atmosphere in order to establish that they are totally independent - I would say they have succeeded. This was more like an ad agency than those rabbit warren, linoleum floored, old institutional fortresses that we so associate with law and order.

And they have had a tall order. More usually famous for their headline inquiries (de Menezes etc) than the bread and butter work of investigating and monitoring complaints, the task to gain public confidence is all. Plagued by high profile leaks from their ranks which caused distress to employees and all, they brought in an independent investigator to sort out their leaks and security. This whole system needs safeguards - but it also needs trust. The public faith in the police and in the complaints procedure has to be paramount - and so security and independence is vital.

When I was first serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) one of my roles was go round to different police complaints departments and look through case files. Needle in a haystack work - but the point was that you could pick out stuff; you could get a pretty good feel for what went on between police person and complainant and you could understand the frustrations on both sides. I don't suppose unless every exchange was taped you would ever really know the absolute truth - but the audit trails must be capable of picking up trends in a particular station or from a particular officer.

Anyway - all of this transferred to the new IPCC who seem to have a pretty thorough grip on the work - albeit the workload is substantive. Outside of the headline investigations into murders and deaths in custody, they also supervise numerous other investigations as well as having a general remit on police complaints and appeals against decisions. Add to this the new roles of investigating complaints against officers in the immigration and asylum departments which is coming down the line in legislation - next week second reading in Parliament - and they have a monumental task on their hands.

I then dash off to do the Simon Mayo Program on blogging and pod-casting - only to find that the content has changed consequent on the publication of the Power Commission report. Basically the report finds that democracy is stuffed and we need a new electoral system and power to the people. ‘Scuse me - but it really cheeses me off as Lib Dems have advocated this for decades - but the media have taken no notice. Now it is Labour on Labour - they are sitting up and begging. Oh well................ Helena Kennedy, Shahid Malik and me are in one studio with Mayo and others in another studio. We all have a short say on the Power Commission findings. I point out that people are just sick of the spin and falseness of politicians and are crying out for anyone who actually believes in anything and isn't prepared to drop principles for the mere mention of a vote.

Then a quick lobby by BAA to try and persuade me of their sense of conscience and how they try to be sustainable - and to be fair they are trying. However, if attitude to airplane traffic is just to predict and provide - we will get nowhere in saving the planet.

That having been said - I went for three days to Holland last weekend. I decided to take the train both ways to be sustainable - and see the countryside. Of course, travelling all of Friday and Sunday for a Saturday there perhaps I hadn't got it quite right and a longer stay is needed to justify the four trains each way and the length of travel time. But my conscience felt good!

Labels: mpa

2005 was a bit of a year - and then some.

As I look back over the year - I am thrilled with what we have been able to achieve. No - not just the General Election (clearly a stunning victory turning a Labour majority of 10,514 into a LibDem one of 2,395) but the causes and campaigns I and my LibDem colleagues have championed together with local residents. That's what has made the difference in Hornsey & Wood Green.

Current battles ongoing perhaps sum up some of what I am trying to do in the constituency - which all boil down to making it a better place for local people to work, rest and play - to quote a famous old advertising tag line. I don't think aiming for a clean, pleasant and safe environment is asking too much!

I'll start with the Hornsey concrete factory planning application. London Concrete want to plonk a concrete batching plant on Cranford Way - right bang in the middle of a residential area - with schools and children and narrow streets - just the sort of place for over 300 HGVs per week to wreck the local ambience! I and my LibDem colleagues have been campaigning against this application since the moment it was lodged - together with great local group Green N8.

We passed the first hurdle with Haringey Planning Committee refusing the application - but in the way of the world - the developer has appealed and as I write we are in the middle of the hearings by Her Majesty's Inspector to whom I gave 'evidence' the week before Christmas. You can read the evidence on my earlier blog posting about the concrete factory plans.

I invited both John Prescott and Ken Livingstone to see the evil that would be done. Neither accepted my invitation. Holding baited breath now and crossed fingers - this David and Goliath battle will be settled by the end of January.

Another battle that engages me is the fight against sitting mobile telephone masts near vulnerable people - like young children. The idea is to bring forward legislation that would enable local councils to refuse planning permission on the grounds of the precautionary principle - until such time as we have proof positive of what these masts do or do not do to our health. This doesn't just happen in Hornsey & Wood Green but up and down the land. And of course, we all do use mobile phones, so we can't be overly pure. The Government is still proclaiming that there is no evidence of damage to health. I have challenged the Government through Parliamentary channels to do the scientific studies necessary to look at the incidence of cancer around mobile phone masts in situ for 10 years - without which we are all in anecdotal territory. They haven't responded as yet.

Locally, of course, we occasionally succeed and see off a phone mast application - but they relentlessly return nearby or at the same site but from a different company. Good news though - recently in a statement by the local Head of Planning in regard to refusing a particular mast in Fortis Green, he went as far as to say ALL future applications for mobile masts in the Haringey conservation area will be an outright NO from now on! Watch this space.

I am also still keeping up the pressure on Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) over the future of the Hornsey Central Hospital site. Following a long campaign against closure of the old hospital and then a long process of working with local residents and other interested parties - proposals for a new health facility finally came forth from the PCT for a mix of local health services and elderly care. However, dogged by funding problems caused by the withdrawal from renting some of the space by the Health Trust etc delays and fears about its future have crept in. So I recently met yet again with the Chair of the PCT and received personal assurances from him of his commitment to ensuring that the project goes ahead. But there must remain, until the public meeting in the New Year that he has promised me, concerns over what of the original promised facilities will actually proceed and get built.

As for policing - Safer Neighbourhood Teams are what we all want. They are what we have always wanted. But whilst London is promised complete roll-out in the next year - some 'neighbourhoods' are being left out. I have long campaigned to get a team into Highgate - and at last am encouraged that we are on our way to success. Highgate is split between three different boroughs. Now no police commander I know - despite their protestations about cross-border working - is willing to commit him or herself to an actual cross-border Safer Neighbourhood Team. So I have brought this to the Metropolitan Police Authority on several occasions. And am helped in my quest by Crystal Palace - ironically. Crystal Palace is split between five areas - and so the MPA are running a pilot there which if successful will be applied to neighbourhoods like Highgate which suffer from divided ownership. The sooner the better!

So - with obviously lots more going on than I can possibly begin to convey in this message - not to mention the fight of our lives against Labour's attack on the fundamental principles of liberty and justice in our land - I look forward to a challenging and pretty energetic year ahead.

A very Happy New Year to you all!

Labels: hornsey central hospital, john prescott, ken livingstone, mobile phone masts, mpa

Early morning meeting with Richard Sumray, Chair of Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT). I have asked him to come and update me on the proposed development of Hornsey Central Hospital. It is now years since I joined local campaigners to campaign against the closure of the old hospital and then with local campaigners to ensure that a community health facility replaced what was lost.

Richard had been hoping to have a public meeting in December but this is now delayed until January because the relevant policy paper has not yet gone to the trust’s Board and won't do now until January. The proposed scheme - the Primary Care Resource Centre, the Healthy Living centre and other health functions yet to be decided by the practitioners - is still on but there are still some big stumbling blocks remaining before the project can proceed. The second floor of the 2nd Stage, which was to provide offices, hit a dead end when it became clear that the costs were too high. The Strategic Health Trust rejected the project as it was thought to be unaffordable. Since then Richard Sumray and the Board have been re-examining the whole project for ways of making it more affordable and therefore viable.

The redevelopment is being funded through the Government’s LIFT scheme, which means involving a private partner. The PCT consulted their private partner over the idea that the private partner take on the risk of the top floor - developing it for themselves. This would theoretically make it financially feasible, and mean that there were no major changes to the amount of health services to be provided. However, there are risks. The PCT is pretty desperate to get the plans for Hornsey Hospital finished and through by March, because otherwise they will be left with a large financial deficit at the start of the next financial year. But because of the huge level of bureaucracy involved in LIFT schemes it is even money as to whether they will make it.

In the afternoon I am see an 'informant'. Since my days on the Met Police Authority (MPA) I have been pursuing the use of DNA in the search for an abhorrent rapist. The crimes - against old women - are an abomination and have been going on for around ten years with no success by the police in capturing the criminal.

However, in recent years the police have been trawling the black community for 'voluntary' DNA samples. These samples have not, in my view, been voluntary at all. 125 refusniks received an intimidatory letter from a senior detective saying that he was going to look into their reasons for refusal and then let them know of his decision. Well - if it was voluntary - no need to look into anything or decide anything. Furthermore, five of those written to continued to refuse and in the end were arrested. Two gave in at that point, and the remaining three arrested had their DNA taken - as once arrested it is compulsory.

It is so easy to say end justifies means. It is easy to see the argument that this crime is so horrific that it is right to take DNA voluntarily or otherwise. Don't get me wrong. The police are doing a great job. But it is a complete misnomer to call this type of testing 'voluntary'. It is clearly mandatory in practice. And if mandatory DNA testing is happening, that should only be after a proper debate results in a decision to change the rules – we shouldn’t get mandatory testing introduced by the back door. Balancing civil rights, personal freedoms and the fight against crime are tricky - which is all the more reasons why such decisions should not happen on the quiet and without proper public debate.

Since then the trail had gone somewhat cold - for me. The police still hadn't caught the culprit. Then I got an email from someone who only recently was pulled in to give a sample on a spurious excuse and refused. He said he couldn't put it all in an email - so today he came into see me. And he had quite a tale to tell. Needless to say - I will be pursuing this as soon as I have put together an appropriate strategy to so do. It was extremely disheartening to hear some of the treatment he encountered.

Ironically, I then dash over to Earls Court for the Met Police Authority's Christmas do! Very nice to see everyone again. I do miss the MPA - however being LibDem spokesperson on Police, Crime and Disorder and Prisons at least keeps me in the right portfolio.

Labels: dna, hornsey central hospital, mpa, richard sumray

My bags are packed and I hi-tailed it out of town on Saturday morning from Euston. On the train, I sit down and the woman across the aisle from me immediately asks me if I am Lynne Featherstone. I cannot tell a lie! Actually, she turned out to be a constituent living in Creighton Avenue on her way to Glasgow to visit her Mum and we had a few enjoyable hours putting the world to rights; if only we were in charge!

Blackpool may well be a wonderful place for stag nights and hen parties for the young, drunk and noisy, but - sober and middle-aged, truly sorry and no offence meant, it would not be my first choice. Every time I enter the Winter Gardens - which is the conference centre - I try and imagine what nightmares were haunting the author of the design brief. Must have been truly evil!

The Conference Hotel is adequate - but is nowhere near the Winter Gardens and so the delegates are consigned to spending a good part of each day travelling between the two from main hall debates at the Winter Garden to all the fringe meetings at the main hotel and others. In fact, the local authority provided a free shuttle bus - but hardly anyone was told.

But to the business. My guess is - as always - that the media will focus on whether Lib Dems are going to the right or the left and whether Charlie boy's leadership will be challenged. I turn out to be right on both counts. I do one fringe meeting on the right/left kafuffle. The title of the event is 'Can the Liberal Democrats be part of a Progressive Consensus'? This is hosted by the Independent Newspaper and chaired by Steve Richards who does the early Sunday morning politics show on GMTV. (You can read my speech on my website).

I have a go a Gordon Brown - basically. Don't believe he is capable of a consensus - progressive or otherwise. Or more accurately, Brown's progressive consensus is just that - OK so long as you agree with him. Anyway - as everyone knows - I think Brown is a coward who keeps his head down below the parapet when the going gets tough, votes a straight New Labour ticket, is the author of the astronomically expensive and appalling part-privatisation of the tube and who broods in the shadows whilst waiting for Tony's tide to go out.

But what the media really, really want - is for the Liberal Democrats to tear themselves apart on the basis that those of us who fight or represent old Tory seats will want to shift to the right and those of us who fight or represent old Labour seats (like me) will want to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum.

Clearly a disappointing night then as all four of us speakers - Simon Hughes, David Laws, Vince Cable and myself - in one way or another all argue that it isn't a matter of right left - it's about Liberal values. Especially when the Labour government is knee-jerking poorly thought out legislation into being and striking at the principles of justice and freedom that make our country what it is.

The other great debate going on is about multiculturalism and what it means to be British, particularly after 7/7.

Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, has thrown down the gauntlet with a nifty little sound bite: 'we are sleepwalking our way into segregation'. His thesis being that we live in our cultural enclaves and mix less and less. Statement of the bleeding obvious I should say - although it strikes me lots of politicos are fundamentally in denial whilst a Sky TV poll clearly puts over 80% + of real people in line with that thesis.

I get two bites at this issue. I speak at a fringe meeting and then there is also a debate in the main hall.

For the debate, conference has introduced a new format where representatives send in their preferred topic for a discussion on an urgent issue. There is no motion or vote - but people’s views are taken back and with further work and consultation a motion will then be brought back to the next conference for decision. It’s my job to summate the debate.

I have my own views too- and whilst I do think we are becoming a segregated society, I don't think the 7/7 bombers were making a statement about poverty or alienation when they blew us up or that solving the issues of poverty and alienation in our ethnic communities will have anything but a tiny effect on terrorism in ours or any Western country. Terrorists don’t generally come from the poorest or most alienated.

However, history has given us a bit of a lesson about where extremists go to find fodder for their causes. So whilst tackling poverty and alienation won’t directly stop terrorism, it will help make it harder for terrorists to recruit support in future.

I also chair two of the keynote speeches in the main hall. The second one is for my Home Affairs team leader - Mark Oaten - our Shadow Home Secretary. So with only a sentence or two to say I introduce him as the 'toughest Liberal I know' - a phrase picked up by the media sketch writers for the Telegraph and the Guardian! Mark had said a couple of days earlier that he would kill me if I introduced him thus - but I did it purposefully as I believe that 'tough liberalism' is the way forward - particularly in terms of law and order.

Mark gave a bravura speech.

I (and you will thank me for this) am not going to go through every fringe I spoke at - but I was allowed to pontificate on a much wider range of subjects than ever before. In my previous incarnation I was kept pretty much to my policing and transport portfolios. This time - outside of my usual training sessions for the party on 'How we Won Hornsey & Wood Green' and 'Grow your Own Target Seat', I covered Lords - the Last Bastion of Freedom?, What Difference would Electoral Reform make to Women? (not a great deal in my view); The Future of our Towns; Making the Breakthrough (or how to get our arses into gear in the 100+ seats we are second to Labour in for next time); Blogging and so on.

New experience for me (it is always great to do something you have never done before) was something called GNS. I had to go and do the radio responses on what Mark Oaten had said about breaking the consensus around Labour's proposed new terrorist legislation. Whilst we support three of the proposals - an offence of training for terrorism, incitement to terrorism and acts preparatory to terrorism - we can't support an offence 'glorification of terrorism' or the 'three months detention without trial'. Briefly - the 'glorification' one is just too wide a definition. It would turn into a feast for lawyers all interpreting (as is their job) but with such a wide spectrum that it would be very hard for such legislation to be effective - and you don't want the real terrorist dodging around the new legislation because it is poor and they have a good lawyer.

The other - three months detention - strikes at the very heart of our principles of justice - and is another form of internment. Moreover, having seen how stop and search works in practice when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority - it would be just too easy for profiling to lead to automatic three month detention on suspicion - and suspicion as we tragically know from the Met shooting an innocent Brazilian isn't enough. And if after 14 days they need more evidence and more time, there are other ways. They currently put people under surveillance and the numbers are not such that that would be too difficult or expensive. In fact it might very well concentrate the police mind on intelligence-based evidence rather than suspicion. Three months internment would make them casual in their rigour.

Anyway - none of this was the point of my tale. The tale was about the GNS process. I was to speak for eight minutes to each BBC radio station around the country - live! So with headphones on in a tiny studio and with an electronics box - one after another station around the country dialled me up and did the interview. It was pretty tough going. I was just brilliant by about the fifth one - when I had got all my best lines in place - but definitely going off the boil with over-confidence by the ninth! But - as I say - had never even heard of this type of interview before.

And so - the rest was a late dinner with friends and pretty early to bed - and yes - it really was all work!

Labels: david laws, gordon brown, mark oaten, mpa, simon hughes, steve richards, trevor phillips, vince cable

10.15 on a Wednesday morning is the Lib Dem Home Affairs Team meeting. We all gather - Mark Oaten (Shadow Home Secretary), Alistair Carmichael (his deputy), me - (police, crime and disorder), the Lords Home Affairs team, staff and – today- Lord Lester as we are discussing the Equality Commission Bill going through the Lords that day.

I am still not one hundred percent convinced that we should have a single Commission that bungs together race, gender and disability into one body – but before we have a Single Equality Act. To me it is cart before horse - and smacks more of the Government's desire to lessen the ability of the three current Commissions to lobby them successfully.

The other main legislation at the moment is the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill. The idea is to tackle discrimination against Muslims in particular, but its provisions are likely to cause them more harm than good and stir up a whole raft of other evils. The increasing emphasis on bringing religion in line with race in terms of legislation is dangerous.

When I was Chairing the Stop and Search Implementation Panel of the Met Police Authority (until a few weeks ago) it was beginning to creep into that agenda too. There was a move to suggest that because of the increasing number of stops on Muslims (or more accurately those who looked 'Muslim') the police should introduce religious monitoring.

The initial reaction of the Met and the Labour members of the MPA was to jump to and deliver this to rectify the blatant discrimination that was being perpetrated against Muslims. But I fought it (amongst others) as the wrong solution to the problem - and moreover a political solution prior to the General Election.

I had the Home Office in to give some of their evidence on the research they had been doing into this area. It was very interesting - as Muslims in the North of England were dead against it - as opposed to Muslims in London. Many of the religious groups were dead against it - unsurprisingly. Jews and Sikhs who have both been persecuted through the ages for their religious beliefs made it quite clear that they did not wish to have to reveal their religion to anyone.

Anyway - the point I am making is that these are tinderbox times - and all of us in the political maelstrom had better be careful that we do not create a monster that destroys us. I know - dramatic language - but I am extremely concerned about religious freedoms, rights and free speech - which I regard as the tenets of a civilised and peaceful society.

Later at the Parliamentary Party meeting we have the hustings for Chair of the Parliamentary Party. It is the first time this has been contested - as in previous years there has only been one candidate. The result is the challenger (Paul Holmes) wins, defeating the incumbent (Matthew Taylor).

Labels: mark oaten, mpa, single equalities act

Surgery all morning - and in the afternoon my farewell drinks from the London Assembly. It was great to see everyone again. Brian Paddick came (representing Sir Ian Blair). He is just the best example of how police and policing should be - whether that is totally appreciated by the Met I am not sure.

Brian had just been appointed the lead person for the Met on its stop and search policy. Leaving the London Assembly has also meant leaving the MPA, so I'm no longer chairing its panel dealing with stop and search. But at least I know that there will be someone batting for truth and justice at the Met on this issue.

Labels: brian paddick, mpa

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.

Labels: crime, knife crime, mpa

Off to the MPA (having resigned a couple of weeks ago) to lead a deputation from Highgate who have submitted a question. Highgate Tube is out of action - closed - so have to take car. Looks like I won't make it - but I do and arrive just in time.

The issue is that with Highgate being split between three boroughs, no single police commander will ever rate it important enough to get a Safer Neighbourhood Team. So the deputation wants the three police commanders to be given a nudge and a way to be found for such a team to be introduced in the area.

The reaction of my erstwhile colleagues on the MPA is hilarious. Kind of - how dare I? I dare.

Toby Harris (Labour and former GLA member himself) joins with the Tories in trying to infer that I am a johnny come lately to this and it was really started by Tories. Nonsense – as the chair of the MPA points out, I have been working on this for months and raised it on his borough visit to Haringey months and months ago. It’s another example of the rather cynical Labour and Tory love-in we often get in Haringey – they’re both so scared of losing yet more elections to the Lib Dems they like to talk each other up in public.

Anyway - it sparks a jolly good debate - and a few promises. After which melee the MPA Chair asks me to join him and makes a presentation to me with a gift and thanks me for all the hard work. 'Ah - so now you're being nice to me'!

I say thank you and how much I have enjoyed my time on the MPA. I also - parting shot - say that they won't be losing me entirely as I have been put in the LibDem Home Affairs Team! Joy all round........

In the afternoon trail round dismally looking at the few offices which are still left in Parliament. I am almost bottom of the heap and will be left with shoebox, far from the Commons and far from staff by the look of it. I lost my place in office allocations because I had to go to Leeds to do Question Time.

Then I have to meet Mark Littlewood from the LibDem Press Office who runs through the whole media operation with me. Coming from high profile on the Assembly, I have a lot of media experience now - so much of what we cover is for form. Mark seems very on the ball and a good thing from what I can see.

In the evening - pop into Valerie and Clive Silbigers' farewell party. They are moving to France. The first meeting Haringey Lib Dem meeting I ever went to was in Valerie's flat. She has been a stalwart of the Party for over 30 years and is currently President of London Region - an unsung hero of the party to whom I am grateful for her love and support over the years. And in this election - whereas she has always done front of desk at Simon Hughes' campaign HQ - this time she did mine! We wish them all the very best in their new life in France.

Labels: mpa, simon hughes

Meet BBC News (national for once - rather than London) at HQ. I am being interviewed on transport. They are interviewing each of the main parties and then putting some sort of package together for Saturday news.

Transport is key in my view - but not getting much of a play so far in the election. The interviewer turns out to have written to me as his daughter failed to get a place in this year's primary school lottery in Hornsey & Wood Green. I tell him about the fiasco that has just come to light following a reply from the Government a recent letter of mine.

Despite the grief, anxiety and publicity attaining to the scrabble for school places in Muswell Hill (and Crouch End and Wood Green) last year and this - St James's had its application for two form entry turned down. I couldn't understand this and so followed it up to ask for the reasons why. You wouldn't believe it:

"The bid did not demonstrate the need for additional school places. In fact, the information presented showed there were surplus school places available. Officials subsequently contacted London Diocese to explain that the information submitted was incorrect."

So - a typical Labour Haringey cock-up!

Then dash off to Hendon Police College where I am addressing London's top cops on stop and search. It is quite hard to switch in the middle of an election into something else. I have a 20 minute speech to deliver and my mission is to make it quite clear to the Met how seriously the Metropolitan Policy Authority (MPA) takes this issue. There have been lots of warm words from the Met - but we are determined that real change will be delivered. Too long to go into now - but still think that some senior officers in the Met believe this is more to do with political correctness than anything else. It is not. It is about good and effective policing full stop!

Back to the election HQ to find that Ladbrokes have apparently opened the betting and Valerie's husband Clive phoned to put a bet on me winning the seat. Valerie burst out laughing at something Clive said on the phone. I asked what she was laughing at and she said that Clive had asked to put a bet on Lynne to win and the bookie had said 'Where's she racing?'.

I finish the day with a canter around the very hilly parts of Muswell Hill ward to deliver some letters - and then home to emails. The fun just never stops ... and the day ends with news that the bookies have cut the odds on me winning twice already!

Labels: mpa

I go into City Hall this morning for two meetings. The first with my MPA officer and my police researcher to prepare the planning for the next meeting of the panel I chair on Stop & Search (implementing the recommendations of the scrutiny). We also discuss the speech I am to make to about 150 police officers including all the borough commanders on 19th April.

Then a meeting with a Transport for London officer about the shenanigans that have been going on with the Immigration Service 'fishing' at stations etc. TfL have now stopped the practise and developed an agreed protocol on operations. The Immigration Service were being opportunistic and lazy in my view - as the TfL chap said far better that they should spend their time trapping illegal taxi touts as opposed to people just using public transport.

Now, as you may know – I'm not always Mayor Ken’s greatest fan! Someone points out to me Ken's revenge! He slags me off in the Socialist Worker. His ire has been stirred by Tariq Ali's support for me in Hornsey and Wood Green to oust 'warmonger Roche'. Ken used to be anti-war but now he's a Labour man. Not so much a Mayor for London as a Mayor for Labour.

I run out of City Hall and dash back to the Muswell Hill roundabout for a briefing of a raft of Police Officers and Community Support officers who are part of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

1,000 officers across five boroughs are taking part in five one day bursts where a whole raft of measures are used to deter, detect and reduce crime. It was fantastic. I have never seen so many officers in Muswell Hill and passers by may have taken fright in case there was some sort of crime wave that officers had been brought in for! I look forward to seeing the analysis of this operation when it comes for monitoring to the Performance Committee of the MPA on which I sit.

Then I rush home, log on. I had forgotten what happens when a General Election gets called and I am the candidate - emails flood in as do phone calls. I check for emergency ones - and then dash out to deliver leaflets for a few hours.

Rush back to do a pre-record radio interview on tomorrow's Mayor's Question Time – more on transport - then rush out again for another few hours delivering leaflets. I do rely on the election campaign to get fit and lose half a stone.

And as ever - back for emails, letters and of course - this blog!

Labels: mpa, tfl

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.

Labels: crime, mpa

Chair the Stop & Search Implementation Panel which is overseeing how the MPA's recommendations from last year's scrutiny are being implemented - or not. This session we have the Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Met Police as witnesses.

The first part is taken up with an update on the Met's new policy on Stop & Search. Their 'vision' statement now addresses the issue of 'disproportionality' in Stop & Search - and I am extremely glad we were able to persuade them to put this in and that they were intelligent and brave enough to do so.

('Disproportionality' is the issue of people from some communities being more likely than average to be stopped and searched; is this because of good policing reasons or because of bias in the implementation of the policy? There's a lot more about this on the MPA website.)

The next battle is over a recommendation in the scrutiny that asks for a special department to run the Stop & Search brief - at present it is one (or a couple) of men and a dog. This proves a sticking point for me and I will ask for this to come back to next meeting with Tim Godwin (bigwig) and the new Lead for the Met on this, Brian Paddick. The MPA is not going to let this one get away - it is too important.

In the afternoon, do some canvassing in Highgate and Hornsey wards - despite cold and rain. It feels pretty good on the doorsteps. Later, an evening of paperwork and email and envelopes.

Labels: brian paddick, mpa

It's a Metropolitan Police Authority Away Day - and we are 'away' in a hotel in Piccadilly. Without boring you to death over the whole day’s proceedings - the basic thrust of the day was that we have to get smarter and tougher in calling the Met to account.

I have learned an awful lot in the nearly five years I have been on the Authority and think that considering we were only 'born' then, a tremendous amount of change for the better has come in that period.

I suggest that the 'strap line' for the MPA should be – ‘Making Police Accountable (to London)’.

In the evening, it’s my regular surgery for residents. It's so full I cannot get through everyone in time before Muswell Hill Library closes. So many problems for residents of humungous proportions – it’s a sound reminder of why it is worth fighting for better services. You might not always be able to deliver the outcome someone wants - but you can treat people well at all times.

Then rush around dropping off leaflets to deliverers (and remember to return a DVD to the video store) before it’s our local branch executive meeting.

You can tell things are hotting up because the attendance is good, the people's reports are more or less all there and everyone is on the ball. Fundraising is high on the agenda - and the new fundraising group has put together an Auction of Promises, which is where people give something (an example is use of a flat for a weekend during the Edinburgh Festival) and then we will have an auction of those 'lots'.

The nitty gritty about printing schedules, policy working groups, council business etc takes most of the evening and I rush home to try and catch the late night broadcast of Desperate Housewives. Pure escapism.

Labels: mpa, muswell hill library

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!

Labels: crime, mpa, muswell hill library

Chairing the Stop and Search Implementation Panel at City Hall - which means following up on how the recommendations of our investigation into stop and search are going.

Today's meeting's hot issues are: have the Met come back with agreement on changing their vision statement appropriately and have they responded to our request for a public document to explain their new stop and search policy?

The Met came back with pretty negative responses. They hadn't changed their vision statement and had rejected the idea of the document. As chair, I made it clear that as far as I and the other members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) were concerned these were fundamental issues and they needed to go back and look at the issues once again.

More police business later in the day with a meeting of the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board of the MPA.

I raised the morning's clash of views with the meeting and asked the chair's guidance as to what happened when the Met and the MPA could not come to an agreement. The Commissioner's Chief of Staff was in attendance (unfortunately she had not been able to attend the morning session) and she is leading the stop and search steering group within the Met. She kindly said she thought we would be able to resolve the issues. I am sure we will come to agreement soon and I was grateful to her for a genuine effort to cross this bridge.

Another issue was faith monitoring. Diametrically opposed views split the group - which actually is a good thing. This isn't a simple right and wrong way forward and the issues really need to be debated, aired, thrashed out. Would faith monitoring enhance our understanding of what is going on - which is the stated purpose - or would it deepen differences and be a pointless knee-jerk reaction to the very real problem faced by Muslims post 9/11?

Labels: mpa

Back into City Hall to catch up on correspondence etc. Sally Hamwee says that during Mayor’s Question Time (which I’d missed with my back trouble) she asked my question to the Mayor and said that it was his Christmas present that I was not there to irritate him. He rejoined with 'that depends what she's up to'!

Last meeting of the Met Police Authority before the break. Big issue of the day is the naming of the three new buildings that house the new call centre system - C3I. Suggestion that went to committee was to name them John Stevens, Paul Condon and Toby Harris. Whilst the first two - after commissioners - went through finance committee, the third stuck in everyone's throat. Toby Harris was the first chair of the MPA - but as he lost his seat at the election and does not garner universal respect and admiration and came back as an “independent” appointee of the Home Secretary - it's a no no.

So it came to full authority. An interesting bit is the equality impact statement on the paper which says the practise of naming buildings after policemen means that inevitably all buildings will be named after white men and so needs review. I say do it now. As everyone seems keen on Sir John, the argument is over the other two. Of course, women and ethnic minorities don't figure to date.

Cindy Butts suggests Nick Long for the Lambeth Building - but others don't feel it should be named after any MPA member. Cindy's devotion to Nick is admirable - but living idols can fall from grace. It could have been the Blunkett building - and then where would we be.

The Chair calls for suggestions to be decided later etc. Poor old Toby - not nice to find such universal agreement cross party and independents that it shouldn't be named after him.

Labels: mpa

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.

Labels: crime, mpa

I had a meeting with David Warwick (Chief Executive, Haringey Council) about White Hart Lane Recreation Ground. Raised my concerns. He agreed to get the head of planning to follow up with further details about the case.

Later, I had the first meeting of a new sub-committee that I am chairing at the London Assembly. It is to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the investigation into the police’s use of stop and search Scrutiny which the MPA (including myself) carried out earlier this year.

Labels: mpa

Bump into my sister and brother-in-law at Haringey Civic Centre where he has come to take British Citizenship. Dan is American and has been here for decades and finally decided to do this. Very significant day.

I am there to meet a member of the Bangladeshi community who wanted to talk to me about a range of issues. Very interesting meeting followed by meeting with a young guy who wants to set up a Welfare to Work program in Tottenham for unemployed, young ethnic minority residents. I wish him well and support the idea. Finding funding will be the issue.

Then off to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) for a meeting of the EODB (Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board). We discuss informally the work program for the next few years. Loads of good ideas around for investigation and keeping the Met to account ranging from policing terrorism to forced marriages.

At end of meeting get to gossip with the members about who will be the next Commissioner. The members who are on the interview panels will not divulge anything to us who weren't. So we adjourn to the pub - where still not a word passes their lips!

Labels: mpa

Memorial Service at Westminster Cathedral for the two firefighters who died saving lives in a house fire earlier this year. Sitting in the Cathedral and listening to the family readings and memories was heartbreaking. Looking around at the hundreds of firefighters there to pay their respects to their colleagues and brothers who died really brought home, not just the sense of family loss and tragedy, but the true bravery and the reality of that loss.

I know, as we all know, that this is a risk of the job - but with 10 years without loss and with all of the safety measures the modern fire service now employ - we have forgotten the harsh reality and the dangers that still exist when brave firefighters put saving our lives before theirs.

It was a very beautiful, very sad and moving service.

Later in the afternoon, I had a briefing by senior Met officers on C3i. This is the new call system which will begin its proper roll-out in the Met in November. It's been worked on for years and cost a fortune - but - if it delivers what it is meant to deliver - it should all have been worth it.

The new system will integrate the thirty-two borough police control rooms into one system, along with other services such as the police’s incident support centres. There are lots of other changes involved too – including an interpretation service for people making 999 calls who have poor English.

The integration should make deploying police resources easier and more effective. There is a bit of concern from borough commanders about their staff being deployed in other boroughs as the system uses the nearest cars to attend. I am sure that will be worked out.

On a personal level, as lead member for response in the MPA - and having been banging on about the Met's failure to answer local, non-urgent calls – I was particularly glad to see that lots of this ‘customer service’ aspect appears to have been taken on board.

There will be a pathway for local calls to end up with local police - and if there is no answer, that call will go back to the operator until an answer is found for the caller. It's not what I would call a Rolls Royce customer service - but at least it is in there. So phoning those 132 police stations across London and plonking the results showing that around 40% never answered the phone does seem to have a possibly positive outcome. Hurrah!

Labels: mpa

Briefing by a senior Met officer on the double murder in Highgate and the other murders committed in London allegedly by the same person. Shocking events.

Holly Lodge estate - where the double murder of an middle-aged couple took place - is the 'nicest' type of street you can imagine. Impossible for neighbours and local residents to conceive of this tragedy.

Without going into details, it looks as if it all raises a whole raft of issues about mental health care. The Metropolitan Policy Authority (MPA) is to conduct a study in this area this year - not a moment too soon.

Labels: mpa

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.

Labels: crime, mpa, muswell hill police station, stephen bloomfield

Last meeting before the summer break of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Deputy Commissioner Blair comes up for a chat with me beforehand to thank me for understanding the 'agonising' decisions the police have to make to catch a rapist in South London by making black men between 25 and 40 'voluntarily' give a DNA sample. That will go on as an issue way beyond Operation Minstead - the issues around DNA databases and discrimination are going to get more frequent and more difficult in my view. How much information should the government or its agencies be able to force people to hand over, and what should be permissible to do with that information and by who?

There is a long debate at the meeting about the use of police cells to hold illegal immigrants. This causes huge problems as there are too few cells and if they are full of immigrants rather than criminals - there is nowhere for criminals to go.

The MPA (or rather Labour) have avoided coming to a decision so far on who should be their "link member" for Haringey. To recap - for the first four years, I had been exiled from Haringey because Labour (who chair the MPA) wanted to keep me out of Haringey in case it was to their political disadvantage for me to be on my home patch. All the other members are enabled to link with their home patch - partly for their convenience but also because of local knowledge. For the first term of office there was a valid reason why Nicky Gavron (who was the Enfield Haringey London Assembly member and lives in Haringey herself) had as good a claim to Haringey as I. But she's no longer the Enfield Haringey member, and her replacement doesn't live in Haringey.

But of course just because Labour insists on its own members having their own local patch, doesn't mean they won't try to impose different standards on other people! It's just this sort of silly pettiness that turns people off politics.

Labels: dna, mpa

It is the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) awayday - all day at some anonymous hotel in London.

For the first four years, I had been exiled from Haringey to Islington as their MPA link member  because Labour (who chair the MPA) wanted to keep me out of Haringey in case it was to my political advantage to be on my home patch.  All the other members are enabled to link with their home patch - partly for their convenience but also because of local knowledge.  However, I had been kept out. For the first term of office th