Police Officers: Recruitment

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear next from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, please.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register and apologise for not doing so the last time I spoke. The current Metropolitan Police Commissioner says that the force has survived over the last decade or so only by selling property and running down reserves, of which there are next to nothing left. What is the Government's response to what he has said?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, there is a range of resources that the Government are trying to put into policing, which we will be announcing next week. There is a range of initiatives the Government are bringing forward, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me and reflect on what is said in due course.

I want to give time for the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to get in his question.

Police Reform

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that the investigation by any police force, not least the National Crime Agency, is a matter for that police force, not Ministers. Additional resources will go into policing next year, so if that is a problem for the National Crime Agency it can call on those additional resources, but it is not for me to determine investigations.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister might find this question familiar: with police and crime commissioners deciding police priorities, police budgets and how those budgets are spent in consultation with their chief constable, and with chief constables having operational independence, how much influence can the Government realistically have over policing under current arrangements?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have quite a lot of influence over policing. As the noble Lord will know, we set the budget for policing and will do so in December. As he will also know, particularly after my contribution today, there is £264 million of additional funding going in, along with £0.5 billion going in overall. Police national insurance contributions will be covered by central government, and a new policing unit is being put in place. There is a push on violence against women and girls. New respect orders are going into place. There will be new powers to tackle off-road bikes. We are giving priorities to police on those issues. This is a partnership. Police and crime commissioners are there, as are chief constables. The Government set a framework and set decisions—for example, the changes in law that we will bring to this House on shoplifting and shop theft. There is a serious central role, but self-evidently there is a local decision-making process as well.

Probation Services: Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a magistrate recently told me that he is resorting to short-term custodial sentences because he has no confidence in the non-custodial alternatives. For example, people are being sentenced to unpaid work but the Probation Service is saying there is no unpaid work for that person to do, so the sentence is written off. Does the Probation Service really have the capacity to do what it is being asked to do?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Probation Service is asked to do an awful lot. Its first and foremost duty is to protect public safety, and to ensure the rehabilitation of people through community sentences or release mechanisms. The noble Lord will know that a sentencing review has been commissioned by the Lord Chancellor. That review is looking at long-term sentences, at short-term sentences and their effectiveness, and at the strengthening of community sentences. It is extremely important that community sentences are strong, that they are implemented and that people attend them. I hope that, further down the line in our policy development, the sentencing review delivers for victims, reducing reoffending and helping the rehabilitation of those individuals who have been convicted.

Police: Junior Cadet Schemes

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is slightly outside my scope of responsibility, but I give credit to the noble Lord for the fact that the RAF, Army and Navy cadets are all very valuable. Only this weekend, we saw them marching and playing a full role in Remembrance services across the United Kingdom. It is an important point, and I will refer his comments to the appropriate Defence Minister to recognise his strength of feeling.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister says how supportive he is of volunteer cadets and how powerless the Home Office is in doing anything about them because of police and crime commissioners. Is it not time to review the system of police and crime commissioners to enable the Government to achieve what they want with police services?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid that is a no for the noble Lord.

Police Accountability

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. We are in the process of reviewing the legislation and I do not want to pre-empt the reviews that are being undertaken by the Attorney-General and the individuals commissioned by the Home Secretary. It is clear, however, that we need to give clarity and support to officers. The key element that has come out of this case is that an officer found themselves prosecuted through the decision of the CPS, which rightly was its independent decision. However, in light of that decision, we have to review whether the threshold for the prosecution was right and whether we need to examine the issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Those are things we will do, but I cannot give a commitment today to finalise it.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I accept that there is going to be a review, so perhaps I could ask the Minister to ask the review to consider the following. Surely, a lawfully armed police officer on duty, acting in accordance with their training, who volunteers to carry a gun to protect the public and who tragically kills someone should not be subject to exactly the same process as an illegally armed criminal who goes out to murder someone? It is not just about the court; it is about the decision of the IOPC and the decision of the CPS. Why did that happen in this case, and what will the Government do to make sure it does not happen again? Of course, there needs to be accountability, but surely not parity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings extensive experience to this debate and these questions from his policing background. I understand the points he has made, but I hope he will understand when I say to him first and foremost that I cannot second-guess the decisions that were taken by the CPS and/or the IOPC about this case. Those decisions were taken—that is their right to do so—and ultimately those charges were brought in a proper way under the legislation and framework that was in place. They have been put before a jury and the jury has determined that there is no case to answer for those charges. That is the history of this matter, difficult though it is.

As well as the anonymity issue, which is important, the Home Secretary has brought forward three measures in the Statement to improve the timeliness and fairness of investigations: aligning the threshold of IOPC referrals of officers to the CPS so that we can examine that in detail; speeding up the process whereby the IOPC sends cases to the CPS and putting the IOPC victims’ right to review policy on a statutory footing; and reviewing the DPP guidance on the existing legal framework, which will conclude by the end of 2024. Those things are in train. While the noble Lord might want me to opine about the decision that was taken, I cannot, but I am sure this House will hold me to account in future as to the outcome of those reviews downstream.

Police: Firearms Officers

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for his welcome. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is continuing the accountability review that was established by previous Home Secretaries in previous Governments to examine the issues that are before this House in many of the questions raised today. My right honourable friend is reaching urgent conclusions on that and, as I have indicated today, will be reporting back to the House of Commons. My commitment to the noble Lord and this House is that, the moment she does so, I will be here to do the same, and I will be open to questions on the detail of any proposals in due course.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. A former armed police officer speaking on the BBC’s “Today” programme this morning—and I commend his contribution to noble Lords—asked whether an alternative akin to a military court martial could be used in such cases. Is that something the Government would consider?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, brings great experience to this matter. He has made a suggestion that is worth reflecting upon, but I do not wish to give consideration to it today. There are areas that we are looking at in this whole process that I will discuss with this House in due course, but today I would rather reflect on the fact that we have confidence in our police to do the job, that the jury and the CPS came to a conclusion in the trial yesterday that respects the rule of law, and that the jury has been unanimous in its decision. We will reflect on how we approach the situation post today, if the noble Lord will allow it.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Paddick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome and support the Bill. It takes a common-sense approach to the definition of family—what the person on the Clapham omnibus would reasonably consider, were the family to be in the United Kingdom, to be a family member who should be with other members of the same family. The public would, I believe, regard any of the family members described in the Bill as “close” rather than “extended” family.

There are not enough safe and orderly routes. According to the family reunion in the UK organisation, outside the three nationality-specific schemes, fewer than 500 people were brought to the UK by any other safe route in the year ending June 2024. The International Rescue Committee is clear that expanding safe and orderly routes, such as family reunion provided by this Bill, is the best way to ensure that people can safely access protection in the UK so that they do not have to resort to dangerous journeys.

To suggest that allowing those aged under 18 to bring close family members to this country will encourage parents to endanger their own children’s lives—sending vulnerable people on perilous journey’s just so that, if their children make it, they can apply to bring their parents to join them—risks further demonising asylum seekers as heartless, reckless and less worthy of our compassion. As a number of briefings that we have helpfully been provided with say, there is no evidence that families are sending children as—I think the word is regrettable in all the circumstances—anchors, as the House of Lords European Union Committee termed the alleged practice in its 2017 report Children in Crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, mentioned this.

Asylum seekers, by their very nature, at the very least in the early stages of their time in this country, are likely to be unfamiliar with the legal system that stands between them and family reunion. Therefore, there is a compelling fairness argument that legal assistance to help refugees navigate this system should be provided.

We need asylum seekers who have been given refuge in this country to feel welcome as full members of society and to be fully integrated, enjoying the same entitlements and privileges of those around them—including being able to be with close family members. They are likely to be happier, more productive and more loyal members of society if they can have their close family members with them, not to mention reducing the dangers of trafficking and exploitation highlighted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

Not only is the Bill common sense in its scope and the legal aid it seeks to provide, it is common sense in ensuring those granted sanctuary are even more loyal and productive, and in helping to put the criminal people smugglers out of business by providing a much-needed safe and orderly route for refugees’ close family members.

Operation Conifer

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his comments. I must again say to the House that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive. It is unfortunate that Operation Conifer ended without resolution. I personally feel, although I will reflect on the issues raised today, that the first port of call should be going back to the chief constable of Wiltshire for an investigation into the concerns that have been raised. I hope that that will potentially be undertaken by the noble Lord. I will certainly follow up on the Opposition Front Bench’s suggestion as to what happened to any previous letter.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that some legal process needs to be established in the case of deceased people being accused of serious criminal offences, in light of the fact that it is not possible to hold a criminal trial nor to libel the dead?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the College of Policing has looked at investigating allegations and calls for allegations made against individuals both living and dead and is currently potentially issuing guidelines to police forces around these matters. Again, this is a complex area. I want to reflect on the points raised today, and I am open to further scrutiny from this House in due course.

King’s Speech

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service. I warmly welcome the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Timpson, to this House. This House values experience, and both Ministers have relevant experience in abundance. I also warmly welcome this Government and their declared principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to make streets safer, although I believe it will take more than just legislation to strengthen policing, to give the police greater powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and to strengthen support for victims. It is the implementation of such measures, and the holding of police forces to account for achieving these laudable goals, that may prove difficult.

We still have 43 operationally independent chief constables, almost all of whom are overseen by elected police and crime commissioners or elected regional mayors, each of whom has their own political mandate. The former tripartite arrangement of chief constable, Home Office and police authority that was in place when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, was previously Minister for Crime and Policing, no longer exists. The current complex governance arrangements not only allow the Home Office to absolve itself of responsibility, as happened under previous Conservative Governments, but make it much harder for the Home Office to drive change, achieve savings and focus policing on the Government’s priorities.

The operational independence of chief constables and the political independence of police and crime commissioners, who now appoint chief constables with little Home Office input, together create a potential barrier to national policing reform if police chiefs and PCCs decide to resist them. In His Majesty’s gracious Speech and in the accompanying documentation and commentary, including the very useful Library briefing, the Government apparently intend to introduce a crime and policing Bill as one of their first laws, enabling the Home Office to take a “more active” approach to crime and policing. Can the Minister explain how that can done within the current governance arrangements?

The Government’s determination to tackle knife crime is also welcome. Can the Minister explain how executives of online companies that break new rules on the supply of ninja swords, lethal zombie-style knives and machetes online will be personally held to account if those companies are based overseas, as many of them are?

The neighbourhood policing guarantee is also welcome and crucial in a policing system based on policing by consent, where trust and confidence in the police is inextricably linked to police effectiveness. New police officers, police community support officers and special constables are to be paid for by setting national standards for procurement, and by establishing shared services and specialist functions to drive down costs. Can the Minister explain how this is to be done when the financing of police forces is in the hands of elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, and the deployment of those resources is a matter for operationally independent chief constables? Similar constitutional difficulty appears to lie in the proposal to compel operationally independent chief constables to follow the recommendations of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.

As the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Royall of Blaisdon, have said, the breathtaking extent of violence against women and girls, as set out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, is deeply concerning. Can the Minister say what, if any, evidential test will be applied to the proposed automatic suspension of police officers being investigated for domestic abuse or sexual offences, or whether an uncorroborated allegation with no supporting evidence would be sufficient?

I only raise these issues as matters which I respectfully ask the new Government to consider, in the earnest hope that any difficulties can be overcome, so that they can achieve their policing goals, which I wholeheartedly support.

Peaceful Protests

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I am now a non-affiliated Member of this House and that I served for 30 years as a police officer specialising in public order policing. I also declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service, and I am grateful to the Met for providing me with a briefing, and to Big Brother Watch, as I have managed to acquire its briefing.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the opportunity to debate the practical toolkit for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests, although I fear that this debate may be a little premature, as components one and three of the toolkit are yet to be published. However, we have component two, “A principle-based guidance for the human-rights compliant use of digital technologies in the context of peaceful protests”.

Looking at this document from a practical UK policing perspective, I found it somewhat confusing—and I am looking at this from a physical assembly or demonstration perspective, rather than an online one, which is included in the UN document. As Big Brother Watch points out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, just said, the guidance states that biometric surveillance should not be used

“before, during or after protests”

and

“facial recognition technologies … must not be utilised to identify or track individuals peacefully participating in a protest”.

Big Brother Watch goes on to say that:

“The use of this technology at protests represents a significant threat to the rights of freedom of expression and association, as the chilling effect will mean members of the public are less willing to engage their right to protest, as they fear loss of anonymity and reprisals both now and in the future”.


If, and only if, facial recognition is deployed to capture the images of peaceful protestors and identify them, would the fear of loss of anonymity be a reasonable one—and if, and only if, those protestors were to engage in unlawful activity, would there be a reasonable fear of reprisals, at least here in the United Kingdom? The fact is that live facial recognition as deployed by police forces in the United Kingdom does not capture and retain images but simply compares those images with a limited and specific database of individuals, which changes depending on the deployment.

For example, my understanding is that the images of those convicted of stalking-type offences in relation to members of the Royal Family may be used at events such as the Coronation, but away from sites of lawful protest. Biometric facial images are captured and compared with the event-specific database images, and if there is no match, the image is immediately and irreversibly deleted. At events such as the Coronation, where assembly was lawful, and mindful of the potential chilling effect, the Metropolitan Police confirmed in a public statement that facial recognition

“is not used to identify people who are linked to, or have been convicted of, being involved in protest activity”.

It was used to protect peaceful gatherings, not where people had peacefully gathered, by identifying individuals who present a danger in crowds, such as registered sex offenders.

If live facial recognition was used against some universal database, as are, I believe, commercially available to law enforcement organisations outside the UK—a global compilation of millions of images taken from open sources, such as Facebook and Instagram, whereby the police could identify most people at a peaceful protest—the concerns of Big Brother Watch and the UN special rapporteur would have some justification. My understanding is that this is prohibited in the United Kingdom.

Big Brother Watch says:

“Despite international warnings that the use of facial recognition in the context of protest poses a grave threat to human rights, police forces in the UK are already using the technology to monitor and identify protestors”.


However, my understanding is that police forces are not using live facial recognition technology to monitor and identify peaceful protesters but to monitor and identify those who may present a threat to peaceful protest. The example that Big Brother Watch gave of its use at Silverstone, for example, was in connection with an unlawful protest, where the lives of both the protestors and those trying to prevent them could have been put at risk; it was not deployed at a peaceful assembly.

I agree with Big Brother Watch in its assertion that there is insufficient primary legislation specifically overseeing the use of facial recognition, meaning that the police can, to some extent, write their own rules about how it is deployed. However, they are bound by data protection law and the Human Rights Act, which restrict their activities to what is necessary and proportionate to achieve their lawful objectives. In the case of peaceful protest, that is to ensure that the protest remains peaceful. Being able to identify, isolate and restrict the activities of known troublemakers is surely preferable to placing unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on the activities of the peaceful majority. Properly deployed, controlled and audited, the use of live facial recognition can enable, rather than have a chilling effect on, the right to free assembly and protest. I for one would be more likely to engage in a protest if I believed that the police were taking necessary and proportionate action to identify, isolate and prevent the attendance of those known to be intent on criminal activity.

Big Brother Watch quite rightly questions who is on the databases that the police use, and against which live facial recognition compares captured images. There is a legitimate need for the police to be audited in some way to ensure that their actions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Arguably, primary or secondary legislation is needed to ensure that the police are deploying live facial recognition in a human-rights compliant way.

However, in my opinion—based on 30 years as a police officer, 10 years as a Liberal Democrat Peer, with eight years as their Front Bench spokesperson on home affairs, and now being back in the paid employ of the Met—live facial recognition in the vicinity of protests, assemblies and elsewhere has the potential to make policing even more proportionate, better targeted and less interventionist. As with so much technology, it is not, as it seems to be portrayed by some, bad in itself—but it has the potential, without proper regulation, to be used in a non-human-rights compliant way. While that is contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, perhaps the way in which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has recently resisted calls from politicians to ban peaceful protests might give her some hope for the future.