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.

Police Recruitment: Reform

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

We do. Obviously we have to maintain the operational independence of the police—I do not think there is any question or dispute about that—so leadership of the police has to remain localised to that extent. However, noble Lords will be aware that we have invested in the College of Policing’s National Centre for Police Leadership, which has already set out standards at every level. There is no dispute that the leadership of the police needs to up its game.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. What plans does the Home Office have to take some responsibility here and mandate the psychological assessment of potential police recruits, looking particularly for any propensity to inappropriately exert power over others?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I understand it, part of the online process for recruitment involves an element of psychometric testing. I do not know precisely what that testing involves, but I will find out and come back. The online assessment process is very complicated—otherwise, I would give more detail.

Shamima Begum

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend raises some interesting points. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State can deprive someone of British citizenship only where he considers that it is conducive to the public good to do so. That includes consideration of the need to protect all UK citizens, both in the UK and abroad. Once again, I will not comment on the specifics of this case.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Rwanda scheme, which plans to export legitimate refugees, a natural extension of this scheme, which makes those accused of terrorism someone else’s problem by depriving them of their British citizenship?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the movement of large numbers of people seeking asylum is in danger of overwhelming the international asylum system, as the Government’s policy statement on this Bill suggests, and this requires a different response. There appear to me to be two alternatives: work collaboratively with all countries affected, with a global response to a global problem; or take this Government’s approach, working in the United Kingdom’s sole interests, or, arguably, in the interests of party politics. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in this House on 12 July last year,

“this is a massive, international issue on a generational basis and that tackling it needs profound thinking on a long-term basis ... It is essential that the solutions, as we go forward, bring together the whole of politics, all sides of both Houses, and unite our country instead of using this as a wedge issue to divide things”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1872.]

The most reverend Primate reiterated that this afternoon.

The Government quote figures from last year, when boat arrivals into mainland Europe apparently increased by 80% while boat arrivals into the UK fell by about one-third, according to the Minister in his opening remarks, as if this were some kind of victory. I am sure that for domestic party-political purposes it might look that way, but I doubt our European neighbours see it in the same light: “I’m all right, Jack” does not translate well in continental Europe.

The Government insist that the Rwanda scheme is only one part of their plan to “Stop the boats”, co-operation with our European neighbours arguably being a far more important part of the plan. What will our European neighbours think if, as the Prime Minster seems intent on doing, the United Kingdom ignores so-called pyjama injunctions issued by a so-called foreign court? Of course, what the Government are referring to are Rule 39 indications issued by the European Court of Human Rights, an international court of which the UK is a member. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, last Thursday the President of the ECHR said:

“Where states have in the past failed to comply with rule 39 indications, judges have found that the states have violated their obligations under Article 34 of the convention”.


If the Government decide that, like Russia, they no longer wish to be bound by international law, because, like Russia, they do not agree with the decisions of judges of the ECHR, then they should ask Parliament to remove the United Kingdom from the European Court of Human Rights. Two days on from Holocaust Memorial Day, perhaps we should remember why the UK was instrumental in establishing such a court and consider the impact such a withdrawal would have on the willingness of our European neighbours to co-operate with us on this issue.

What other steps might ease the flow of asylum seekers? A representative of the International Organization for Migration told the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning that what drives people to migrate is that they feel they have no options in their home country, with climate change overtaking conflict as the biggest driver. If the Government were serious about doing whatever it takes to stop the boats, why have they pushed back the deadlines for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers? Why have they announced plans to issue hundreds of new oil and gas licences, and given the go-ahead for a new coal mine that will produce an estimated 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year? Why have they reduced overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income, while spending almost 30% of that budget in 2022 on housing asylum seekers in the UK, rather than spending it overseas? I am not saying that these are not legitimate political decisions, but they are not consistent with the claim that the Government are doing everything they can to stop the boats.

Doing everything the Government can to stop the boats should include doing whatever they can to encourage co-operation with our European neighbours and to improve conditions in asylum seekers’ home countries. They should not ignore or withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights; they should reinstate their previous commitments to combat climate change and their commitment to 0.7% on overseas aid—what one might call a strategic approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the most reverend Primate have said, this Bill is not the answer.

Windrush Generation

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not have the details on the specific recommendations and the progress, but I will endeavour to find them, and I will write to the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the non-affiliated Bench.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the majority of the recommendations from the lessons learned review had been implemented. Why was the Windrush working group disbanded before all the recommendations had been implemented?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the former Home Secretary decided not to proceed with three lesson learned review recommendations —hence my use of the word “majority”. I will not say any more on that subject, because I think it is subject to legal proceedings.

Illegal Immigration

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. I will absolutely take that back. We have been capacity building in Rwanda—the noble Lord just referred to it—and I know that a lot of that work is ongoing.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, press reports at the weekend stated that, between 2020 and 2022, 100% of asylum claims by people from Afghanistan and Syria were rejected by the Rwandan authorities while almost 100% of asylum claims by people from Afghanistan and Syria were accepted by the UK authorities. How can the Government maintain that Rwanda has been treating asylum seekers fairly in the light of these statistics?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it does not matter whether the Government assert that we have been treating them fairly; the fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. As I said, we are capacity building; we are working with the Rwandans. We are working on a new treaty. I am sure that the noble Lord’s concerns will be addressed in the fullness of time.

Policing of Marches and Demonstrations

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an extremely good point. I commend his activities and those of his colleagues and other faith leaders in trying to find civilised solutions to this problem. I am afraid I do not know what His Majesty’s Government are doing to try to encourage the sort of interactions he mentioned, but it deserves to be mentioned, on proportionality, that the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches have a responsibility. Peter Tatchell, whom many in the House will know, was blocked from marching with the pro-Palestinians for carrying a sign that said:

“End Israel’s occupation! End Hamas’s sexist, homophobic, anti-human rights dictatorship!”


That is pretty disgraceful. Everybody needs to exercise proportionality in this.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any setting, but does the Minister agree that arresting people in the middle of a mass protest can result in serious disorder and injury to police officers, as can the police attempting to prevent people who are determined to protest from doing so, as we saw with the right-wing demonstrators on Saturday?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, on this I am very happy to defer to the noble Lord’s extensive experience of policing protests of this type. It is self-evident that if you wade into a crowd, there is a chance that you will inflame tensions. The police are operationally independent and I will not judge what they did, but their approach makes some sense to me in that context.