The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is lucky to have the loquacious Baroness Ruth Henig CBE DL as its chairman. Very lucky, in fact, because the odds on her having been born – in Leicestershire back in 1943 – would have dissuaded even the most confident of Saturday afternoon punters. “Just about everything was heavily stacked against my birth,” explains the utterly charming Baroness during afternoon tea at The House of Lords. On hearing her story, you begin to understand why.
Ruth’s German-born Jewish parents were forced to leave for Holland – where they met and married – during the maniacal rise of The Third Reich that besmirched the 1930s. When Hitler’s troops marched into the Netherlands come 1940, the Baroness’ parents escaped in a lifeboat that was subsequently tailed by a German U-Boat. “Thankfully, the U-Boat had run out of torpedoes,” adds Henig with an endearing chuckle. “After 30 hours or so, the ‘refugee’ craft was sighted by a British destroyer in the middle of the Channel. My mother and father and its other passengers were picked up, taken to Dover and then imprisoned. Everyone was under suspicion. The Battle of Britain was raging, don’t forget.”
Once the authorities established the fact that Mr and Mrs Munzer were on the side of the Allies, they were sent separately to a temporary base on the Isle of Man and, subsequently, on to Leicester to make a new life for themselves. “They had no money,” explains the Baroness, “but that was true of everyone. Partly because of this, my father didn’t want any more children, but my mother did.”
Ever since the day her parents first recounted their story, the Baroness has – quite understandably – always sensed (and been fully aware of) the fragility of life. “I never take anything for granted, and nor would I. Although we may have been poor, I didn’t feel any sense of deprivation.” Sadly, Henig’s mother passed away last December, but her father – of whom she is clearly very fond – celebrated his 99th birthday on 1 August.
The University of Life
Attendance at Humberstone Primary School paved the way for a move to Wyggeston Grammar School for Girls, where the Baroness enjoyed “the arts side of education”. English, history, music and Latin were her chosen ‘A’ Level subjects. “English and history were all about people, and people have always fascinated me. I loved English simply because I love reading.” Current printed matter for the Baroness includes Private Eye, The Times, The Lancaster Guardian and The Lancashire Evening Post (the latter newspapers for reasons which will become readily apparent).
“My parents were desperate for me to go to either Oxford or Cambridge University. To take the entrance exam you had to stay on for another year, but that wasn’t on my agenda,” adds the Baroness. “Bedford College at The University of London was happy to take me, so I went there. London was where I really wanted to go in any event. It was vibrant and full of life.”
Within months of her arrival in 1962, the Students’ Union was organising gigs by none other than The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Herman’s Hermits and The Animals. As a matter of fact, House of the Rising Sun remains one of her “favourite numbers” to this day.
At 4.15 pm, the Division Bell sounds and the Baroness is called away to vote in the House. “The last time I was here Margaret [Baroness Thatcher] was sitting in that chair,” she states, pointing to mine. I felt even more privileged.
On her return, I discover that immediately upon leaving university the young Ruth became engaged to be married. Her soon-to-be first husband, Stanley Henig, had just begun lecturing at the (then) newly-opened University of Lancaster. “For the first time in my life I ventured north of Manchester,” states the Baroness with a wry smile. “I moved to Lancaster in January 1966, and I decided that my next ‘project’ would be some form of post-graduate study.”
A few months after the engagement, her fiance was selected (and duly elected) as the Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate for Lancaster. Less than a week into married life, Henig found herself back in the Capital and, from 1966 through to 1968, she served as her husband’s constituency secretary.
“Stanley was one of the youngest MPs, and we would regularly be invited to Downing Street.” Hardly surprising, then, that the Baroness describes this as an “interesting and exciting” period of her life.
In 1968, she too was appointed as a lecturer at the University of Lancaster. “From a young age I was very clear that I wanted to have my own career. I harboured a desire for independence.” Alas, husband Stanley lost his seat in 1970 and, immediately thereafter, couldn’t find suitable employment. Temporary work in Warwick finally came along, followed by another post back in London. It’s fair to say, though, that it was a tough time for the newlyweds who, by then, had two young sons.
Entering the political realm
As the wife of an ex-MP, Henig had naturally been involved in local politics. In 1975, she was asked if she might fancy standing as a Parliamentary Candidate.
“I fought the 1979 General Election on behalf of the Labour Party, but I lost. The Conservatives were knocking on doors asking people if they wanted to buy their Council houses. It turned out to be a real vote winner.”
A starting point in terms of the Baroness’ involvement with the policing and security sectors was her election as a County Councillor in 1981 and appointment as chairman of the Lancashire Police Committee – which then became the Lancashire Police Authority – in 1989. In 1997, the Baroness assumed the role of chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, which afforded her “eight years of involvement at a national level”. This was also the period during which she had her first dealings with the Home Office.
“Eventually, it reached the stage whereby if ever the Home Office wanted to consult someone on policing issues who wasn’t a serving officer then it would be me,” states the Baroness with an air of great pride. She sat on a number of national bodies between 1997 and 2005, including the Lawrence Steering Group, the National Crime Reduction Task Force, the Leadership Development Panel, the Senior Appointments Panel, the Police Modernisation Group and the Prolific and Priority Offenders Steering Group.
“As a founding member of the National Criminal Justice Board from 2003 through to 2005,” asserts Henig, “I acted as a sponsor for the Durham and Northamptonshire Criminal Justice Boards, helping them to monitor and improve their performance while at the same time establishing an effective dialogue with the National Board.”
Unprompted, the Baroness then develops this theme. “The national level is interesting and important as it tends to involve legislation and the need for an overview of issues. The local dimension was more important, though, as you could test out whether what was being proposed actually worked on the ground.”
In an impassioned moment, the Baroness continues: “For me, it’s not just about introducing new laws or trying to improve, say, crime reduction figures or providing publicprotection. All of those things are important, but my question is always: ‘Is this national idea working at a local level?’ I used to be in London one or two days every week, but then I’d go back to Lancaster and test all of the theory on the front line. This is vitally important.”
Street Crime Action Group
One wonders what Henig’s most formative experience was during this politically-infused period? “When I became a member of the Street Crime Action Group, I think. This Action Group met from 2002 through to 2004. It was chaired by Prime Minister Tony Blair and included 30 individuals, many of them senior cabinet ministers. Several of the initiatives that have come to fruition in the past few years all originated from that Action Group.
“A plethora of issues emerged in terms of trying to deal with street crime and what fuels it. “If the answer was drugs, that led us to look at young peoples’ issues, then areas like housing problems. All the while, what the Prime Minister was looking for was some sense of how things were working in the real world. After a while, I was providing him with examples of what measures were successful – and which ones were not – outside of London. After a time, the Prime Minister referred to me as his touchstone.”
Did the excellent work carried out by the Action Group influence Henig’s entrance to the House of Lords? “Probably,” she responds. “I don’t know for sure because you are never told, but it was soon after the Action Group disbanded that it was suggested to me I might like to join the Lords. I didn’t know Tony Blair at all until my involvement with the Group.”
Entering The House of Lords presented the Baroness with something of a dilemma. “I couldn’t reconcile being in the House of Lords with carrying on in local Government.”
Henig had represented Lancaster East as a Lancashire County Councillor from 1981 through to 2005. In addition to her ongoing elected responsibilities, she served as chair of the Council (from 1999 to 2000) and was the cabinet member for cross-cutting issues between 2001 and 2003.
“When the local Government elections came along in 2005, I had to make a choice. I decided to give up local Government, but that meant ceding my role working in policing, so too the hands-on involvement I had cherished for many years. What it also did, though, is lead me to think seriously about how I could still use the knowledge and experience that I had gained.”
Crime, disorder… and legislation
From 1997 onwards, the Baroness (who has held the post of president of the Association of Police Authorities since July 2005) worked closely with successive policing ministers, contributing to the pivotal Crime and Disorder legislation of 1998, the 2002 Police Reform Act and the White Paper that emerged on police reform. Indeed, the 2000 award of her CBE was for services to policing.
“I chaired my local Community Safety Partnership in Lancaster between 1999 and 2005. The partnership was recognised by the regional crime director as a strong one which adopted an antisocial behaviour strategy, and also ran a campaign involving young people that was designed to combat drug and alcohol abuse.” The Community Safety Partnership covers a wide range of bodies, including Magistrates, representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the health sector. Until recently, Henig was its vice-chairman.
The Baroness also served as chairman for the External Programme Board of the Lancashire Street Crime Initiative between 2002 and 2004. The Board involved partners from the police service, the Crown Courts, the CPS, the Magistracy, youth offending teams, local Community Safety Partnerships, education departments, victim support, the prison and probation services and the North West Government Office.
“This afforded me an excellent grasp of local issues,” explains Henig. “In Lancashire, we were at the vanguard of working with the private security sector, bringing in Community Warden Schemes and the like. Lancashire Constabulary was one of the first forces to accredit under the Police Reform Act. It was also the first force outside of London and Manchester to bring in Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).”
Bobbies on the cheap?
An opportune moment to ask the Baroness for her thoughts on ‘Blunkett’s Bobbies’ who, of late, have come in for some stinging criticism.
“To begin with, I was very wary about the whole idea. I remember going to the Home Affairs Select Committee to give evidence when the idea of PCSOs was first mooted. What role would they play? How would they operate? Would they undermine the policing function? There were also a number of questions to be answered in terms of their powers.”
In Lancaster, they’d trialled a scheme whereby traffic wardens had been turned into street wardens to great effect. Lancashire’s vision was that PCSOs would work with the beat officer as part of a neighbourhood policing team. “I bought into that vision,” says Henig. “Lancashire went over to a neighbourhood policing model based on individual wards. There would be a beat officer and perhaps two PCSOs resident in each ward. The PCSOs proved their worth, and I began to modify my views quite quickly.”
For the Baroness, the crucial issue with PCSOs is how they are deployed. “They must be used as part of a coherent policing structure, and be directly answerable to the beat officer and the local inspector. If that happens, they are invaluable. Certainly, Lancashire’s Constabulary and public loves them.”
Barely pausing for breath, the articulate Henig continues: “The quality of the people becoming PCSOs is the other important ingredient. All sorts of individuals have joined the ranks, representing a range of ethnicities that’s far higher than in the police service. This can only be a good thing at the local level.”
The problem of what powers PCSOs have – or don’t, as the critics would say – isn’t going to go away though, is it?
“In Lancashire, we ran two pilot schemes,” counters the Baroness. “In one, PCSOs had the power of arrest. In the other, they didn’t. Ultimately, Lancashire Police decided it didn’t want PCSOs to have powers of arrest due to the potential for confrontation.” That’s all well and good, but if they cannot arrest and detain people what is their real function and value?
“They can do an enormous amount. They pick up intelligence. They are additional eyes and ears. They are patrolling the streets now in a way that most police officers don’t have the time to do.”
The latter point may have substance, but isn’t that a damning indictment of the fact that the numbers of sworn police personnel are dwindling and continually mired in paperwork?
Policing: a far larger task
“The real issue is: ‘What do you want the police service to do?’ At the moment, that remit covers such a wide range of responsibilities,” opines the Baroness. “People are looking for sworn officers to be neighbourhood police, to respond to incidents, to fight terrorism and drug-related crimes and police the roads. It’s not that there aren’t enough police officers. Rather, it’s that what they are being asked to do is becoming a far larger task than it used to be.”
Why, then, is there a finite budget from central Government for policing? If there are societal problems bad enough (and spreading sufficiently) to warrant serious attention, surely you recruit adequate numbers of sworn police personnel to ameliorate them in the most effective and professional manner?
“Every year, one of the jobs of police authorities is to ask local people what they feel should be their priorities for the next 12 months. Sometimes, this exercise involves consulting 3,000 or 4,000 people. If it results in the public wanting extra police on the streets and they are prepared to pay for that by having, say, 50 pence per week added to their Community Charge bill, then fine.”
Henig adds: “However, nationally this wasn’t found to be acceptable to most residents. That being the case, the Treasury will always say: ‘No’ to any suggested increase in the number of sworn, full-time police personnel.”
The sentencing issue
There are a plethora of television programmes at the moment looking at the work of the police and the extent of crime in the UK. Watching them, it’s pretty apparent that the police service has a near impossible task on its hands. Having spent many ‘man hours’ bringing (all-too-often repeat) offenders to book, the Courts appear to let these miscreants off with very lenient sentences.
Given that the Baroness served as a Magistrate on the Lancaster Bench in the criminal and family Courts from 1984 to 2004, one wonders what her views are on the matter?
“When cases come to Court, you must be aware there is a range from the very best police officers to the not-so-good. What do you do about officers who aren’t as competent as they might be, who don’t make very good notes at the scene of the crime? Sometimes, evidence is presented to Courts and found to be seriously wanting. It happens. Believe me. This is one of the reasons why justice might not always be done. In my experience, the requirement for the police to work with the CPS in making sure everything is done correctly and through the proper channels, and that the right charges are brought, is not adhered to in all cases.”
As a Magistrate, Baroness Henig also learned that the ‘criminals’ who stood before her fell very much into two categories.
“One is the person who is well intentioned but weak-willed, and has fallen into bad ways. They are not out-and-out villains, though. They need help, but as Magistrates you don’t have the wherewithal to assist,” comments the bespectacled, softly-spoken SIA chairman.
“The other category does include out-and-out crooks who are playing the system and demand the maximum penalty allowed by law. In general, the Judiciary is bad at separating those two categories.”
Sure Start in life
What about the repeat offenders? Did the same criminals and the same offences crop up time and again?
“In a word? Yes. In terms of offenders, it would be mainly young men who have left school with few or no qualifications and have no interest in life other than consuming large amounts of alcohol. When you come to fine them, they’ll say they have three children, or two children. You just know that their offspring are highly likely to grow up and behave in a similar way.”
In today’s Britain, far too many children are being brought up in single parent households. With the best will in the world, young children are hard to rear with two parents, let alone one. It is a very real problem for our society.
“All of the evidence shows that if we invest in children when they are young that has much greater effect than throwing money at the criminal justice system when individuals are 18 or 19 years old,” asserts the Baroness. “The Government’s Sure Start programme has been operational for two or three years now. The strategy’s most certainly right, but there isn’t enough evidence to prove its overall worth at the present time.”
According to Henig, the most important skill she learned as a Magistrate was never to take things at face value, no matter how tight the case might seem for the defence or the prosecution. “One must listen to both sides of every story.”
As we shall discover in the October edition of Security Management Today, this is a belief the Baroness is practising widely during her work with the Regulator.
