Lord Mackenzie is one of a handful of people in the Houses of Parliament with law enforcement experience. Mark Rowe goes to Westminster to talk to the former senior police officer, a self-admitted ‘political animal’.
Lord Mackenzie is one of a handful of people in the Houses of Parliament with law enforcement experience. Mark Rowe goes to Westminster to talk to the former senior police officer, a self-admitted ‘political animal’.
There is life after policing, says Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, although he adds that he did enjoy policing. That comes across in his autobiography Two Lives of Brian: From Policing to Politics (reviewed by Ken Rogers in our July 2004 edition). He rose through the ranks to become a Durham Chief Superintendent, and was president of the Police Superintendents Association from 1995 to 1998. That year he retired; and was made a peer. My first question (after a false start when I pulled out of my shirt pocket not the list of questions but a train ticket) was on these lines; his contentment in Parliament comes across in his autobiography. That contrasts with the autobiography of another senior northern police officer, Keith Hellawell, whose time as ‘drugs czar’ ended bitterly. Even the title of Hellawell’s book, The Outsider, speaks volumes. Lord Mackenzie replied that Keith Hellawell had been in a paid post; as a lord you are not. That said, Lord Mackenzie was a special advisor on policing issues to the former home secretary, Jack Straw from 1998 to 2001.Lord Mackenzie said: “I used to advise Jack Straw as a policy advisor; and you are to some extent restricted in that you haven’t got the freedom to be as critical as you might want to be. Once I ceased to fulfil that role I decided that I was far better outside the tent where I could still contribute and be constructive, either in the chamber or directly with ministers. I used to go and see David Blunkett [the Home Secretary who resigned in December 2004]; I haven’t seen Charles Clarke [new Home Secretary] yet. The thing is, I have access to these people and I can represent people that write to me, and people often do on all sorts of issues, usually to do with the criminal law. I recently got a question asked on double jeopardy, which was instrumental in getting the rule changed on that. So I suppose the bottom line, Mark, is that being in here I feel quite genuinely that I can make a difference.”
A rare animal
Next question; that makes you quite a rare animal, someone in parliament with policing and private security know-how? Lord Mackenzie said: “The House of Commons is made up quite often of professional politicians who started life, from university, as research people, and then eventually stood for a [parliamentary] seat, got a seat eventually, and really have spent their whole life enmeshed in the political world. So in that sense they have never really done a real job, I suppose; that is what we are seeing. Whereas the Lords is quite a contrast, because it is packed full of people who have invariably spent 30 or 40 years at the coal-face of life, whether it be in law, industry, in business, even the church. And they bring to the House of Lords and to parliament a vast array of good quality experience and I hope that I do that in policing terms. So that is the difference between professional politicians and the House of Lords. And that is why I am against an elected second chamber, because you would lose that reservoir of experience, that we value. You would get a replica of the House of Commons, which I don’t think would be advantageous.” At that I made the point that around 1990 at speeches by two peers I asked if they could justify an unelected second chamber; neither wanted to. Lord Mackenzie replied: “Before I came in here I probably would have been just as vehement that it [an unelected Lords] wasn’t as democratic. But there is nothing to say that having a democratic second chamber would add value and quality to parliament, and I think quite the opposite. It wouldn’t. The people in the Lords now invariably would not go to the bother of standing for election, so you would simply get people who are, I say again, politicians. Whereas you have a tremendous advantage in having this vast experience; not being more powerful than the Commons, but certainly being a check and balance on the Commons and saying to the Commons, ‘perhaps you should look again at this, because our experience is, it might not work’. Occasionally we fall out, but the number of times we agree far outnumber the times we come to blows, as it were.”
Policing co-operation
What of the crossover between police and the private security industry? Lord Mackenzie was president of the Joint Security Industry Council, and has changed his role to a more hands-off one of patron. Mentioning the ‘extended police family’, Lord Mackenzie said: “Of course the security industry to some extent is being harnessed by the police service, by the Government.” It is essential, he added that the police service does work very closely with private security – a properly vetted security industry. Hence the Security Industry Authority. Once security is fully regulated, it will be far easier, he said, for police to work hand in hand with Security, and develop a trusting relationship. The day before the interview, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reported that pubs and clubs could begin to apply for longer opening hours under the new licensing laws. So to take a currently controversial example: those who make trouble on the streets for police at night have already been trouble for private security staff in the pubs, clubs or leisure centres? Lord Mackenzie replied that it was no accident that door staff were among the first groups to be licensed by the SIA. Once door staff are licensed, and properly trained, there is no reason why they should not work in co-operation with police. Echoing the Government, he spoke of more flexible licensing hours rather than talking about 24-hour drinking. Rather, different closing hours would mean fewer problems on the street, in the fish and chip shop and so on. “So I am quite relaxed about the extended licensing regime; I don’t think it will bring a lot of the problems the jeremiahs seem to think they will.” He mentioned police community support officers, an extra resource he hopes chief constables will use wisely; and market forces will determine whether premises stay open. An advantage of the new laws, he added, is that the licensing authority is no longer the magistrates’ court, but the local authority; so licensing decisions are taken locally; and you can make your feelings known to your local elected representatives.
On protest
What of another security issue affecting businesses; protesters, whether Fathers 4 Justice, animal rights or others? Lord Mackenzie said: “I think one of the dilemmas of a liberal democracy is defending that liberal democracy against those who would try and destroy it. What I mean by that is the very fact that people are using the liberal nature of the democracy to demonstrate, to commit acts which can be described as terrorism in some cases.” He went on to the debate over what to do with terror suspects; recently Charles Clarke has proposed more or less house arrest for such suspects. It’s a difficult dilemma for any Home Secretary, Lord Mackenzie said: on the one hand, civil liberties; on the other, the security of the country. “And I think we need to have a full and frank debate as to just which way we go. I think I am inclined to go along with the view that we should be more liberal in admitting telephone tapping evidence and providing we don’t give away our sources, that might well be a better way forward than simple locking people up on the whim of a politician.”
For whom the bell tolls
There is probably no surer way on earth to know you are late for an 11am appointment than Big Ben tolls for 11. It meant I was in too much of a hurry to note the security measures around the Palace of Westminster: the dome cameras mounted on the railings between Parliament and Westminster Bridge; the numerous uniformed Metropolitan Police officers; the baggage screening machine inside a white marquee, guarded at the entrance by an officer carrying a machine-gun; and the black, frankly rather ugly rectangular blocks on the perimeter to counter a suicide vehicle bomb. For all that, last year pro-hunting demonstrators very publicly made it onto the floor of the House of Commons. On this point, Lord Mackenzie returned to the dilemmas of a liberal democracy. If Parliament is anything, it should be accessible to the people, he said: “The very lobby system is to allow people to come and lobby their member of parliament. Access to parliament is absolutely critical in a democracy. You can’t have a parliament operating in secret. Again, by the nature of that, you have to have very strict security measures, and balance that access with keeping the place secure; and of course we saw that breach of security, where demonstrators got into the chamber. I think that was irresponsible, because they aren’t furthering their own cause, they are simply destroying the liberal nature of our Parliament. But we need, again, to balance it and have fairly rigorous security measures; but nonetheless, ordinary decent citizens should still have access to the highest echelons of Parliament.”
Media responsibility
What of the point that the pro-hunting demonstrators, F4J and others, see media coverage from such a high-profile breach of security as an end in itself? Beginning his answer with a phrase of Mrs Thatcher’s – denying (in the 1980s case) the IRA the ‘oxygen of publicity’ – Lord Mackenzie spoke of a free press that, perhaps, should be more responsible in its reporting of breaches of security that may encourage others to do the same. “I think there is a very heavy and grave responsibility on the media, particularly the printed media. Newspapers. The tabloids.” Yet another dilemma in a democracy: between freedom of the press and that press being free to report to excess.
Durham commuter
The interview ended as it began, asking about Lord Mackenzie’s life as a member of the House of Lords. It is trite, arguably condescending, but nonetheless the case that a working-class Durham lad has made it to the Lords. He takes care of himself – Professional Security waited by the lift in the foyer of the peers’ office block around the corner from Parliament, but Lord Mackenzie came down the stairs. He led the way through a door and around a corridor to a conference room, that, next to a door marked ‘Lord Macgregor’ said ‘Lord Harris of Haringey’. Lord Mackenzie put his head to the door to listen, and went in cautiously; the room was untaken. Lord Mackenzie left briefly to check the room was free; it was. On the wall were two TV screens telling of parliamentary business; in between, a big framed old railway advertising poster for Morecambe. Which is perhaps apt because Lord Mackenzie is a regular commuter, from Durham to London on a Monday, and back on Friday, unless there is a weekend appointment. In that case his wife Jean may come down too. “I use the train as an extension of the office, so I actually work on the train; I read or I write, do whatever I have to do, so I don’t notice it [the journey]; you can use laptops, so it’s great.” Which took him on to the technology or lack of it in the Lords: “When I first came into the House of Lords, I didn’t have an office, I didn’t have a telephone, I didn’t have a desk. All I got was a locker and a peg to hang my coat on. I couldn’t believe it. And I was like that for three years; and that was a bit of a frugal existence, because I had to get a desk where I could and a telephone where I could. It’s a lot different now; we are sitting in a very nice suite of offices, I have my own office, we have conference facilities. Across the road is a very nice canteen. We are given computers and there is a good system of support so I have no complaints about the facilities provided over the last few years; it’s first-class.
Day in Parliament
So my normal day: I will come in about 9, 9.30 and sort out e-mails, letters from constituents – not that I have constituents, but people do write to me and I deal with it in the same way an MP will deal with it.” That is, write or talk to the minister, who in due course responds, and Lord Mackenzie responds to the writer. Unlike a constituency MP, a peer’s ‘constituents’ can be from anywhere in the UK, the world even. “So I can contribute to people’s well-being in that sense. The Houses normally sits at 2.30pm; I will listen to questions from the Government, sometimes asking a question, sometimes asking a supplementary question. I will sit in debates, Second Reading debates, if it is a Bill that is of interest; there is a lot going on in Parliament that is not of interest, so you don’t sit in the chamber all of the time, there’s 1,001 things to do. I have got business meetings, board meetings, I am a consultant, so I am continuously juggling a diary as any busy person would be.
Access to ministers
“Because the House quite often sits until 10.30pm I will be on the parliamentary estate until that time quite often and so it is a long day. And I used to be in the CID working long hours and I can compare the hours I work here and the hours I used to work as a detective many years ago. So I am used to it; but having said that, I enjoyed it. I live about 20 minutes away walking distance; and I invariably walk to work and walk back in the evening. I am a firm believer in keeping as reasonably fit as I can.” For the same reason, Lord Mackenzie – he is 62 this month – adds that he is careful with the number of lunch, dinner and reception invites he accepts; only one lunch or dinner a day invitation, not both: “And that keeps me reasonably sensibly weighted – which is important,” he added with a smile. “And of course the big advantage of being in Parliament; when there is a vote you find yourself in the division lobby with ministers, so it gives you direct access to Ministers of the Crown, and so you can raise points of interest, one on to one as you walk through the division lobby, which is in a sense unrivalled access.” Not suggesting that there is anything improper in that, but, as in any walk of life, such casual bumping into people ….? It’s not what you know, Lord Mackenzie quoted, it’s who you know – writ large. “And any politician worth his salt will use that it he wants to get across a point, or influence events; it’s a very useful mechanism.” And what of the future; to repeat, the autobiography showed him contented; so he would like to carry on? “As long as I feel I am contributing something and I am in a position health-wise to continue the fairly heavy workload; but certainly at the moment I feel fit, I enjoy it, I am working extremely long and hard. But again, I think, achieving things, which I think is the important thing. I have a place in the Canaries, which I run to now and again. I enjoy the sunshine, but I certainly wouldn’t fancy retiring over there. I enjoy the cut and thrust of Parliament, I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate.” Winding up, he said: “And I get on extremely well I should add with all the staff in the Lords from cleaners to attendants to police officers, to clerks, to other colleagues, on all sides of the House. And the thing that really struck me when i came here and does still is the extreme friendliness of everybody.”
Wake-up
A good point, we agreed, to close. In the small talk before I left the building, Lord Mackenzie complimented the humour of Professional Security’s e-mail newsletter. An after-dinner speaker and conference chairman himself, besides a speaker in the Lords, he said that he, too, tries to use humour, at the start of a speech. To wake them (the Lords) up? I joked, disrespectfully. Lord Mackenzie laughed. “To keep them awake,” he said, tactfully. p
