Oliver Cromwell peers down from his plinth outside the Palace of Westminster. Below is sprawled a lion and Cromwell is hoping that thing he heard about lions being no good at climbing is true. The lion is wearing a passive expression and appears to be more interested in watching the armed police officers who loiter nearby like extras in a mid-noughties docu-drama about a biological terrorist attack. Those used to observing cats hunting would recognise the lion's apparent lack of interest in Cromwell as a common tactic of feline misdirection.
Inside, the palace is strikingly ecclesiastical. The implication seems to be that the authority wielded here is derived directly from God and the building is an apparatus for conducting His will. Tall unadorned stone spaces act as resonating chambers and divine vibrations are picked up in rooms all over the building where they are translated into statutes, motions, addenda and so on.
The Right Honourable Keith Vaz feels these vibrations as he sits as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee. On the menu today: antisocial behaviour. MPs sit primed to scrutinise the issue. On the wall: a grand portrait of Joseph Stalin, or, at least, what looks like one. Louise Casey of the Home Office is to be interrogated regarding her role in addressing antisocial behaviour.
Her message is clear. The problem of naughty children is of a second order kind; the problem is the parents. We tackle this problem best when we intervene early and when we educate the parents. Indeed, we should intervene early in other ways too; the police should be vigilant in tackling low-level crime. The word 'zero-tolerancing' is used.
Despite this clarity, one MP is unimpressed and, during his set of questions, accuses Casey of taking us "all around the houses".
The discussion moves on to examine more specific things to do with youth organisations and the simple measures that could be taken to improve the way they work: having youth clubs open a Friday evening rather than a Wednesday evening is one example.
This bores Vaz and he pipes up with his own line of questioning.
"What about spin?" he asks, "Has there been a problem of spin with antisocial behaviour?"
The statistics say that crime is down, replies Casey.
Vaz invites Casey to dispel the rumour in the Evening Standard that she would like to stand as a Labour candidate for London mayor. She says that the rumour is "nonsense". She is free to go.
Next, three people representing youth organisations. Their message is slightly different. Dysfunctional families are part of the problem, yes, but really the problem is of a third order kind: it is the problem of intergenerational poverty. This ideological shift elicits murmurs and shuffling in their seats from the MPs. Also, a little nodding.
One of these three is a young man recently released from prison. He is now involved with a charity called User Voice.
Vaz leans forward, "Why did you commit your crimes?"
The young man talks of not feeling connected, of not feeling that he and his friends were part of the same society that he saw depicted on the news. He has seen Vaz on the television but feels no connection to the people in the suits.
"You're in a suit!"
At first it is difficult to tell where this ejaculation has come from: everyone speaks into microphones and their voices seem to emanate from the same place. Soon it is clear that it was David Davies MP (not to be confused with former Tory party leadership candidate David Davis MP) who spoke.
The young man ignores this and continues to describe the perspective of youth. He felt that he did not want to be part of the nine-to-five world.
An unabashed Davies rallies, "Neither do we!"
The committee sits for another hour or so. Outside and along the river in Whitehall Gardens, palm trees shiver and pigeons perform synchronised aerial drills to stave off the cold.
While I know the names of all the people that spoke before the select committee that day I haven't included them here in case they Google themselves and end up finding this nonsense.
Also, while the work of select committees is, as far as I know, always entirely public I don't know where I stand legally as regards writing about this so I've tried to be careful. Certain things – particularly the order of events and the characterisation of Keith Vaz – are fictonal.
I was there while on work experience with Inside Housing and the reporter I was with wrote something about the meeting as well.
