Crime: Domestic Violence
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this debate. I will speak briefly from two perspectives: first, as people might expect, as a former police officer; and secondly, as people might not expect, as a victim of domestic violence in the past.
Despite the negative media attention surrounding the recent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary report Everyone’s Business: Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse, it did highlight some good work carried out by, for example, the Metropolitan Police, an organisation of which I have 30 years’ experience—some of it not good. When I was a constable in the 1970s, we were told that domestic violence was the last thing that we should get involved with, as victims of domestic violence, once they had been patched up in casualty, invariably wanted to go back to their abusive partners and declined to assist the police with any prosecution.
I could not fully understand the mentality of these victims until I became a victim of domestic violence myself. My relationship started normally and lovingly but, imperceptibly, the coercive control and emotional abuse gradually took over. Sometimes something told you that things were not right: my partner’s tearing up of a birthday card from a friend which he thought was from a secret lover, for example; overly and unreasonably jealous behaviour, such as searching the contacts on my mobile phone and refusing to believe that “Bruno” was actually my boss’s official driver and not someone I was having an affair with; allowing me to go out for the night only for me to find that he was following me; and, almost inevitably, eventually a violent attack in the street. Even then, it was only when I was on a residential training course and began to talk to a female colleague that I realised that, however much I loved this individual, it was an abusive and dysfunctional relationship. Luckily for me, the violence was not serious. For too many others, mainly women, it can be fatal.
A decade or so ago, work was done in the Metropolitan Police to identify patterns of behaviour that led to domestic murder. It showed that a pattern of behaviour was established, starting with verbal abuse and coercive control, emotional abuse and then physical violence, tragically culminating in such murders. Officers were then instructed that, when attending domestic violence incidents, they should look out for such patterns in order to identify where victims were particularly vulnerable. This work was developed into a risk assessment tool by Laura Richards, initially in the Metropolitan Police, and then by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and is now widely used and known as DASH. I say “widely used”, but Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that it was inconsistently applied and that the police had to be consistent in their approach to domestic violence.
Interestingly, similar patterns of escalating behaviour were identified by the probation service in its report on working with racist offenders published in 1998, where the title of the report encapsulates this sort of progression: From Murmur to Murder. The report highlighted what could happen if racist behaviour was left unchallenged. There are direct parallels here, where unacceptable behaviour in a domestic setting can and tragically does escalate to violence and, all too frequently, to murder. Despite the research, the experience and the good work by some police forces, because such non-physical abuse, coercive control and emotional abuse are not considered by most police forces to be criminal offences, there is little the police or other agencies actually do until, tragically, in many cases, it is too late to prevent serious assaults or even deaths.
My understanding of the law as it stands is that if a stranger carried out the sort of non-physical abuse I suffered, he could be guilty of the criminal offences of harassment and stalking; but if I was in a relationship with that individual, he would be not be considered guilty of any criminal offence. That cannot be right. If my former partner had known that such behaviour did amount to a criminal offence, he might have thought twice about it. If I had known that such behaviour was a criminal offence, that might have helped me to redress the power imbalance in that relationship and helped me prevent the behaviour escalating into violence.
Although I have talked today about my own experience of same-sex domestic violence, the biggest issue is violence against women by men. I believe that the Government may be bringing forward legislation in the Queen’s Speech to extend the definition of child abuse to include psychological as well as physical harm. Legislation to criminalise patterns of behaviour that amount to psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence cases would not only help prevent further violent attacks but help save the lives of some of the more than 100 women a year in this country who die at the hands of men who they are or have been in a relationship with.
Immigration Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak mainly to Amendment 56. I apologise to the House that I have not spoken in previous stages of the Bill although I have been present for the overwhelming majority of the debates in this House. I rise somewhat reluctantly in support of the Government as I fully understand some of the concerns many noble Lords, including many of those on my own Benches, have on this issue. I have been struggling to balance both sides of the argument in this complex area. However, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have some issues with what he has said this afternoon.
My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship where the person concerned has acquired such citizenship through fraudulent means, whether it makes them stateless or not. If it is subsequently discovered that it is simply not true that the individual is entitled, and never has been entitled, to British citizenship, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep it, just because that would otherwise make them stateless? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said this afternoon that that is understandable. The Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, provided that that does not make them stateless. Therefore, if it is discovered that a naturalised British subject has been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, for example, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep their acquired British citizenship?
The new power the Secretary of State seeks through Clause 64 is the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK even if it does make them stateless. If it is right that a naturalised British subject should have their British citizenship revoked because they have been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep that British citizenship just because it would otherwise make them stateless?
Some groups have said—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for whom I have the utmost respect said it this afternoon—that it is disproportionate in any circumstances to make somebody stateless, and that it is rogue states and autocratic Governments which have used powers to make their own citizens stateless. That argument has been used to support not giving the Home Secretary these new powers. There is no power, and the Government are not seeking a power, to make stateless those born in this country or those entitled to British citizenship from birth. Here we are talking about citizenship that has been given to those individuals by the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State is seeking the power to take away from them if—and only if—their conduct justifies such revocation.
Some groups have argued that there is a wealth of terrorism-related offences that a person can be prosecuted for as an alternative to revocation of citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has suggested that TPIMs might be another way of dealing with this issue. Clearly, where there is evidence that can be placed before a court, and the individual is in the UK and can be prosecuted, every effort should be made to prosecute them. However, there will be a small number of cases where intelligence of involvement in terrorism cannot be made public.
I have no inside knowledge of the policing of terrorism but, as an example, it is in the public domain that in the past the security services have infiltrated terrorist organisations, and others within such organisations have provided intelligence to the security services about other individuals’ involvement in terrorism. In such cases, the lives of those who provide such intelligence from within would be put at risk if that intelligence were made public. That is, of course, not to say there should be no judicial oversight of such decisions. Anyone deprived of British citizenship, as my noble friend the Minister said, has a full right of appeal and those cases involving closed material would be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that, as these appeals will be heard by SIAC, legal aid will be available to those involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this.
I also think it is important that there is further oversight of the way in which these powers, if granted, would be used. While I largely accept the case for the Secretary of State having these powers, we have seen in the past the possibility of mission creep and testing the boundaries of powers given to Ministers. That is why I am very pleased to see the Government’s amendment, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to ensure that, for example, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation conducts regular reviews into the use of these powers.
Even if it is necessary and proportionate to deprive somebody of citizenship so that it makes them stateless—and I accept that some noble Lords will argue that making someone stateless is disproportionate in any circumstances—some have asked what benefits this would bring. It has been argued that if citizenship is revoked while the individual is abroad, that would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in whatever country they happen to be when their citizenship is revoked. Is it not the case that if they retained a valid British passport, these dangerous people are more likely to be able to travel at will to whatever country they like in pursuit of their terrorist ends? It has also been argued that it will make it more likely that dangerous people who are temporarily abroad will be sent back to the UK because they no longer have a British passport.
Contrary to the briefing provided by the Government, I accept that if someone entered a country with a British passport that is then revoked when they try to leave that country they are most likely to be sent back to the UK, if they do not or cannot regain their original nationality. This seems to be the area about which most noble Lords are concerned this afternoon: that were the UK to refuse admission, it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations. I would very much like some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to what would happen in such circumstances. However, if they were to return to the UK they can be given limited leave to remain, which means that they can be subject to restrictions such as reporting any changes to their employment or address, or being required to report regularly to a police station. On the other hand, if they still hold British citizenship it would be easier for them to be involved in the development of terrorist networks, for example, or in providing support for terrorism or training or assistance in planning terrorist attacks without restriction.
Making someone stateless is a very serious matter that should be contemplated only in the most extreme of circumstances. I believe that such extreme circumstances can and do arise and that the Secretary of State should be allowed to exercise such powers without further delay, subject to the safeguards that already exist and those proposed by the government amendment.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support government Amendment 56A and Clause 64 itself. I have followed closely the important and impressive debates on this clause in Committee and today. By the way, anyone who doubts the value of the House of Lords should read those speeches, because they demonstrate clearly this House’s concern for the rights of the individual.
The issue with which this House is grappling, not for the first time, is how to strike the balance between national security and the rights of the individual, in particular the situation that can arise when the Home Secretary of the day has reason to believe that an individual poses a grave threat to the UK’s national security but when, for various reasons, that person cannot be charged and brought to court. This is a dilemma with which Parliament has had to wrestle in recent years. Where a person poses such a threat but cannot be brought to court, it is right that Parliament should concern itself with the treatment and rights of that individual and the practicalities, as this House did on 17 March and is doing again today. I have had to ask myself: are there any instances of a Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, depriving a person of citizenship on scant evidence and without good reason?
Metropolitan Police
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is another area on which we have received a shocking report, and the Home Secretary commented on it this morning. Those noble Lords who listened to the “Today” programme will have heard a woman called Kimberley talk about her experience of the investigation made into her complaints. It is not good and the Home Secretary is determined to tackle this scourge. As she said this morning, she expects chief constables to respond to the report, and I would say that they owe it to the victims of these crimes to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords will recall the high-profile visit made by the Metropolitan Police to the right honourable Damian Green MP before he became the Minister for Policing, but I do not suspect that many will recall the last high-profile visit made by the Minister for Policing to the Metropolitan Police in support of the excellent work done by the overwhelming majority of police officers every day to keep us safe in London. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us when such a visit was last made and why we have not heard about it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and other senior officers meet the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing on a regular basis. The last public engagement was the launch of the trial of body-worn video equipment that took place late last year and which was also attended by the Mayor of London. Contact between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police is on an everyday basis because it is such an important link for us. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by my earlier comments in answering this Question. We recognise the diligence with which the majority of police officers perform their duties on behalf of the public.
Ellison Review
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That support has been well merited. We have had to deal with some pretty difficult issues in this House but this is one of the most potent occasions that I can remember. I thank the noble Baroness for her dignity on this and on other occasions in dealing with what has been, as the Prime Minister referred to Hillsborough being, a double injustice. The Lawrence family has had to endure a chain of injustice as a result of the failure of the institutions in which we all invest so much trust to bring actual justice to her and her family. I say on behalf of the Home Secretary that I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, had an opportunity to talk to Mrs May earlier today. I am delighted that she was able to do that.
I apologise that we were not able to give the noble Baroness advance notice of this Statement. As she probably is aware, the Statement needed parliamentary privilege to be made public because of its content. I hope that noble Lords will understand that that was the right choice to make because we felt that this was a truly important opportunity to put into the public domain matters about which we believe the public should know.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the only former senior police officer present in the House this afternoon, I personally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, for her dedication, tenacity and dignity in pursuing these issues when, as she has already said, very few people believed her. We owe a great debt to her for pursuing the case in the way that she has done. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the compassion that he has shown in both the delivery of his speech and the way that he has responded.
The Ellison review is very worrying. Not only did the Metropolitan Police Service fail to disclose evidence of corruption to the Macpherson inquiry, but both the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission failed to reveal the evidence of corruption that this review has finally discovered. The activities of the special demonstration squad and other undercover officers in infiltrating those supporting the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks are also a very serious concern. My concern, on which perhaps the Minister can reassure me, is this: how can a judge-led public inquiry get to the truth when the Macpherson inquiry, also a judge-led public inquiry, failed to do so?
Water Cannons
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for enabling us to debate this issue. I agree with a number of remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, although unlike the other two previous speakers I shall try to avoid making party-political points.
During my 30 years of service for the Metropolitan Police I was involved in public order policing at every rank. I started off with the Grunwick trade dispute, was involved in the Lewisham, Southall and Brixton riots, and was later trained as one of a cadre of advanced, trained public order senior police officers. Not only was I trained in dealing with serious public disorder, but I have been involved in it.
It was following those incidents to which I have referred that the Metropolitan Police acquired and tested water cannon at its public order training centre, at that time in Greenwich, in the 1980s. We found that the water cannon we had were too slow and lacked manoeuvrability. They took too long to fill up from the mains water supply and, once full, the water lasted only a few minutes in use. It was decided that water cannon was not a practical option and the idea was abandoned.
There is one, and only one situation, where, in my professional experience, I believe that water cannon may be of use to the police service, and that is to create distance between large stationary crowds throwing missiles at, or in hand-to-hand combat with, police officers who are trying to hold a line. The only significant example I can think of, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is the Countryside Alliance protest of 2004 where, in order to try to create distance between police officers and protesters who appeared to want to invade Parliament, terrible injuries were inflicted on the crowd by officers using batons. Water cannon might have been effective in reducing those injuries in those circumstances. While the injuries were regrettable, Parliament being prevented from carrying out its democratic functions when in session would have been worse.
However, the question has to be asked whether water cannon would have been used in such a situation, even if the Met had them available. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, rightly pointed out, the police on that occasion were caught out by the strength of feeling and the ferocity of the attack on their lines. They had no idea that what they believed would be a peaceful protest would result in such a determined effort to overrun them. If they had thought this might happen, they would have put police cordons at the entrances to Parliament Square and across Abingdon Street, and used a network of barriers as well as police lines to split and contain the crowd. If the crowd had been kept at some distance from its target, it would probably not have been so determined to surge into Parliament. My point is this: rarely do events happen on the UK mainland where water cannon would be useful. Those situations usually result when the police are surprised by the ferocity of the situation, and in such situations water cannon would not be deployed in any event.
We are supposed to be reassured by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Mayor of London’s comments that water cannon would be,
“rarely used and rarely seen”.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, if they are rarely to be seen, they will not be on standby at every demonstration in case things get out of hand. This begs two questions: why, then, are water cannon used by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and why is the Metropolitan Police Service asking for them now? I come to somewhat different conclusions on that from those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Water cannon are used in Northern Ireland reluctantly when, all too frequently, the police come under attack trying to enforce the route of a march, or when two communities attack each other at well known, traditional flashpoints. Such situations are, sadly, not rare and, sadly, predictable.
As Sir Hugh Orde, the former chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and now the president of ACPO, said in 2011, he used water cannon in Northern Ireland “with a heavy heart” when his officers were,
“being attacked by blast bombs and live fire”.
Quite frankly, even in the riots that swept London and some other cities in 2011, we did not see the level of violence that has been seen in Northern Ireland, and what we need is a proportionate response to violence on the streets. In 2011, Sir Hugh Orde said:
“What we have seen so far from these riots, involving fast moving and small groups of lawless people, is a situation that merits the opposite end of public-order policing”,
from the use of water cannon. I agree.
Sir Hugh Orde has carried out a rapid U-turn—something a water cannon is incapable of doing—by now supporting the use of water cannon on the UK mainland. Appearing before the London Assembly recently, he still described water cannon as “unwieldy” and “huge lumps”, but said that they could be used only in certain locations, such as:
“In Whitehall, outside Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament, there are places where they can be used in terms of geography”.
The whole premise for the introduction of water cannon is to prevent the sort of disorder we saw in the 2011 riots. Mark Rowley, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who has already been mentioned, said that water cannon would be of particular use when there was a clear target, citing the burning of shops in Croydon during the riots and scenes in Millbank during the student protests as examples. The Mayor of London, in the same meeting, in flat contradiction to the assistant commissioner, when asked about the London riots and water cannon, said that it,
“would not have made a blind bit of difference”.
Nor would he have authorised their use during the student protests. Despite this, he supports and is prepared to pay for Metropolitan Police water cannon. That does not seem to make much sense.
Let us be clear, policing in this country is based on consent—on the public co-operating with and working with the police. The police must do all they can to appear approachable, to be as much like ordinary people as possible, and to be citizens in uniform doing what we would do if we had their powers and training. What they must not do is appear to be some alien force that has so little respect that the only way they can maintain order is by force and the use of such weapons as water cannon.
Water cannon could usefully be deployed only in very rare situations, and even then the police are unlikely to have them available because these are situations that they were not expecting. Almost without exception, conventional public-order tactics coupled with good intelligence and pre-planning have been and will continue to be successful. Licensing the use of water cannon, their purchase and use on the UK mainland would be disproportionate and damaging to the reputation of the police service. Whichever way we look at it, water cannon are just not worth it.
Immigration Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, this Bill is not one that a majority Liberal Democrat Government would have brought forward. We have worked in coalition to improve this Bill and it is clear from what noble Lords have said that more needs to be done.
It is important that this Bill should be put into context. What is it trying to achieve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that most reasonable people do not believe that there is a danger of this country being overwhelmed by a tsunami of immigrants. We do, however, have to be very careful about the way in which we use statistics in this area. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts talked about population growth. Can the Minister confirm that, in 2012-13, only 20% of the population growth in the UK was due to immigration?
My noble friend Lady Hamwee also suggested that we should examine what underlies hostility and fear towards immigrants. Perhaps the most commonly raised issues from those who oppose all further immigration are the claims that immigrants are taking our jobs and homes. As my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece described in relation to the care sector, there are so many areas of industry and public services that would grind to a halt if it were not for those workers whose origins are overseas—whether they are first or subsequent-generation immigrants. It is not a phenomenon unique to the United Kingdom that immigrants, children and grandchildren of immigrants become the mainstay of the workforce in certain sectors. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, one in four NHS doctors is a migrant. Those who oppose immigration do not talk about the many thousands of jobs that immigrant entrepreneurs create by bringing investment and innovation into the country. Not only do immigrants as a whole contribute more to the British economy in taxation and national insurance than they take out in benefits, they also start businesses that employ many thousands of British people from every background.
As far as taking our homes is concerned, I wish there were more homes that immigrants could be accused of taking. The appalling lack of social housing and what, in some areas, is laughingly called affordable housing means that they are effectively out of the reach of hard-working families. Vast swathes of housing—particularly newbuild in London—are snapped up by overseas investors who have no intention of becoming immigrants. These are the real culprits, not immigration. It is much easier and politically expedient to blame immigrants for the housing crisis which successive Governments have created by their failure to build homes, particularly in the social sector.
There is no hope of considering this Bill objectively—as my noble friends Lord Avebury, Lord Taverne and Lord Roberts of Llandudno have said—if it is done against the distorted backdrop painted by UKIP, the Daily Mail and their sympathisers. They may have convinced too many of the electorate that the consequences of the economic recession for the labour market and the failure to build our way out of the housing crisis are the fault of immigration. It is easier to blame others than it is to blame ourselves, but we should not fall into the same trap. Listening to this debate, I am pleased that none of the Members of your Lordships’ House has done this.
We must have sensible, reasonable and practical controls on immigration; these are needed to address real problems with our existing rules and practices. We must, however, not have irrational, draconian and impractical measures to address the fictitious spectres created as scapegoats for the real challenges faced by families in this country.
The large number of noble friends who have spoken has made the depth of feeling and the concerns we have about this Bill very clear. As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, it is not just the measures; it is the damaging message that we are hostile that a Bill such as this sends to the rest of the world. Many in your Lordships’ House today, including my noble friends Lady Benjamin and Lord Clement-Jones, have expressed concerns about the effect of the Bill on overseas students, whose numbers should not be included in overall immigration figures in any event. We have learnt about the practical difficulties, particularly for overseas students seeking accommodation, that would be presented if this Bill goes through as it is.
The most important reform that we wish to see has nothing to do with this Bill. We want the correct immigration decisions made when the application is first considered. The UK Border Agency clearly was not working effectively and we welcome bringing immigration issues back within the Home Office. But, no matter what the grounds for appeal are or the number of appeals that are allowed, if currently 50% of appeals are successful the Home Office is not getting it right first time. Many of the problems with the current system—delays, indefinite detention and the detention of children—are the consequences of not getting it right first time.
Government effort and energy should be focused on improving the current system before implementing some of the changes proposed in this Bill. We want changes that work and, where we do not know whether they will work or not, we want them piloted. That is why the Government have agreed initially to limit the power to require landlords to check a tenant’s immigration status to one pilot area, rather than nationwide, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Over the weekend, we saw how difficult it is to check someone’s immigration status. Clearly that will be a major difficulty and we need to see how it works in practice.
Not much has been said about the fact that this Bill allows immigration officers to use reasonable force in the exercise of any of their powers, not just for removal. Coupled with the ability to take biometric information from those whom they suspect of being illegally in the country, that makes these high-profile raids on businesses run by people from traditional illegal immigration areas such as the Hong Kong Chinese even more worrying.
Detention without trial also is a serious issue, as Parliament has made clear even where terrorism is suspected. Not to allow appeals against detention within 14 days of proposed deportation without the authority of the Secretary of State is a worrying development. Replacing appeal to a judicial tribunal against a refusal to allow entry with an administrative review, when current appeals are running at about a 50% success rate, is again a concern. As my noble friend Lady Manzoor has said, were the decision-making in the Home Office already of a very high quality, we might be more relaxed about this measure. That may be a useful way forward in addition to, but not instead of, a right to appeal.
My noble friend the Minister no doubt will say that, with 87% of applications already being granted, there should be a higher degree of confidence in decision-making in the Home Office. However, the fact is that the 50% of appeals which are granted are the only ones subjected to a rigorous review. We do not know whether the decision-making in the 87% of cases is correct.
While many would support “deport now, appeal later” in relation to foreign criminals, allowing the Home Office, with its current record, to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes,
“a real risk of serious irreversible harm”,
as the only grounds for not going ahead with it, and extending the power to those whose presence the Secretary of State alone considers to be not “conducive to public good”, seems to give powers to a body that currently has a poor record of judgment.
Clearly, the Article 8 right to a family life needs to be balanced against the public interest—it is not an absolute right—but for the courts to be instructed what weight Article 8 rights should be given appears to me to be an interference with the balancing judgment that has previously been the sole responsibility of the courts.
It may be right that some of those from abroad who have not paid national insurance contributions should be charged for treatment under the National Health Service, but surely this should not apply to those who come here legally to work and who will in effect be paying twice through the charge proposed by this Bill and through their own national insurance contributions.
The Liberal Democrats want to support rational and practical steps to ensure that a firm but fair immigration system is in place. We need to be convinced that the measures proposed in this Bill will actually work without unintended and unacceptable consequences.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I understand the point and I would hope that there would be an appeal system so that at some stage this issue would come before the Court of Appeal, which would deal with it appropriately.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accepting the amendment suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee which excludes offences committed by young people and excludes minor offences as well. However, I share other noble Lords’ concerns about this additional sanction. As I said in Committee, in the aftermath of the riots a couple of years ago, the courts clearly showed how seriously they took offences committed during a riot—far more seriously than if those offences had been committed at some other time. It does not appear to be necessary to have a further sanction in order to deter rioters. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that this is a power given to the courts. I am a great believer in the courts and in the fact that they will make the right decisions. But I fail to see why we need this power. I cannot think of circumstances where a court would allow such an order to be made. Therefore, I see this power as being superfluous.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I want to repeat a point I made briefly at Second Reading, following up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about Wandsworth Borough Council. I, too, checked with serving councillors regarding what happened subsequent to the 2011 riots. It is my information that the council did not pursue the repossession of its property. Although it had the powers, the council decided that it was not in its interest or that of the tenants to pursue the matter. Therefore, I agree with the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. One has to question the motivations of the Government for pursuing this legislative change when a council which sees itself as a flagship of the Conservative Party has not pursued the avenues that were open to it.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I should like to raise one or two questions about this proposal. As the Minister has said, the role that we currently associate with police community support officers is one of public reassurance through visible street patrols and, as again the noble Lord said, through community engagement, including engaging residents more actively in local policing. Indeed, in my own personal experience, on one occasion two police community support officers knocked on my front door—fortunately they were not there to take me away—to ask me what issues, if any, were causing me concern in my own particular locality. Presumably they were doing a survey of residents’ opinions about issues of concern to them. What we now have is a list of additional powers for police community support officers to issue mainly fixed penalty notices. It could therefore be argued that these powers will put police community support officers potentially into a more confrontational position with members of the public than perhaps we normally associate with their role at present.
As I understand it, under the original terms of this Bill it had not been the Government’s intention to make considerable additions to the powers of police community support officers. Indeed, in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, kindly sent to us setting out the Government’s intentions in this amendment, he referred, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, to Stephen Barclay’s amendment in the other place that led to the Government tabling a new clause, which I think is Clause 135, conferring powers on police community support officers to issue fixed penalty notices for cycling without lights. As a result of that, something led the Government to say, “Let’s have a further look at what additional powers we can give to police community support officers”. We now have before us a much greater list. The original Stephen Barclay amendment was one additional power, but now we have a long list of additional powers not just affecting cyclists and not just in connection with traffic-related powers; they go further than that. One could make a case for saying that this is beginning to change the role of PCSOs.
We are not standing here opposing this, but my question is this: what led the Government to believe that the extension of powers now being proposed—in Committee stage here, the Bill having been through the other place—is appropriate when they did not believe it to be so at the time it was drawn up and when, bearing in mind the title of the Bill, we can presume that virtually all issues related to policing and the powers of the police were in fact under review and up for consideration? I would be grateful for an explanation of why this has been brought forward at this stage, but was not considered appropriate when the Bill was being drawn up. I understand that these further powers are the Government’s own view of what they want to do and are not, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, may say to me in response, due to any particular pressure from someone. I can see why the Stephen Barclay amendment was made. He raised and then pursued it, and obviously Government Ministers said that they would accept it and take action.
Since it appears that these additional powers have been put forward at a pretty late stage, and therefore presumably over a short timescale, who has actually been consulted on this proposed extension? Has there been wide consultation with those who might have an interest in this change of approach? Have the police themselves been pressing for this extension for some time but to no avail, and now they find that, metaphorically speaking, they have hit the jackpot, because what they have been pressing for has now been agreed at a rather late stage in the proceedings?
I am putting these points as questions for the Minister and my final question is this. Since the Government have clearly now had a look at what additional powers it would be appropriate to give police community support officers, powers that begin to change the nature of the job—the operative word is “begin”—without taking away their former functions, are the Government now going to carry out a full review of the role and responsibilities of PCSOs? I ask this because what is now in front of us gives the impression, again subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, may say in reply, of something that has been drawn up in quite a short time and is being put forward in the Bill now when it had not been the Government’s intention to do so not very many months ago when the Bill originally arrived in the House of Commons and throughout its passage through that place.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I should like to say a few words arising from my policing background and experience. I support to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in what he said, at least initially. Police community support officers, if they have a useful role, are seen by the police as a bridge between police officers and the community. Part of the reason they are able to perform that role is that they have very limited powers when it comes to enforcement. They can be seen as friends of the community and not necessarily come into conflict with it. As we know from what happened with traffic wardens when they were introduced, they in fact became the enemies of motorists. We certainly would not want to erode the useful role that police community support officers play in terms of being friends of the community and a bridge between the community and what it increasingly sees as enforcement officers; that is, police officers.
The second issue is the need to keep a very clear distinction between police officers and police community support officers. The recruitment standards and the training that police officers receive are far higher than is the case for police community support officers, particularly in the training of police officers in the use of discretion. If we are asking police community support officers to use their discretion as to whether they issue fixed penalty notices to erring motorists or cyclists, considerably more training needs to be given to them on the circumstances in which they should use that discretion. As I say, there is a clear danger that the distinction between the police and police community support officers will be eroded if slowly but surely we give police community support officers more and more powers.
Thirdly, there is already confusion in the minds of the public as to what police community support officers can and cannot do. When police community support officers arrive at the scene of an incident, the public look to them to act as police officers would, and are surprised to find that they do not have the powers or the ability to intervene in a way that the public expect of them. Gradually giving police community support officers more powers will add to that confusion among the public.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to explain the background to the comments that I am about to make, as most noble Lords will know I was a police officer for over 30 years and have seen things from the enforcement side. However, a few months ago a former partner of mine in his early 40s, to whom I was still very close, took an overdose of an illegal drug and died. Hopefully, noble Lords will realise that I am not biased one way or the other on this issue, bearing in mind recent events.
Obviously, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, and I therefore welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this is not the way to reduce harm. My professional experience has taught me that young people in particular—though, as I say, my former partner was not particularly young, but then everything is relative—take no account of whether or not a drug is illegal, particularly bearing in mind the discredit that has been cast on the system of drug classification, where very harmful drugs are in a lower category and far less harmful drugs are in a higher one. They certainly do not pay any attention to what class any illegal drug might be. As far as I see it, the evidence that cannabis use has been reducing, for example, is the result of information in the media about potential harmful medical effects of cannabis. That is what has really had an effect on people’s attitude towards that drug, not whether or not it is illegal or indeed what class of illegality it is in.
This is a very difficult issue to deal with. As we know, particularly with regard to legislating, all that the manufacturers do is slightly alter the compound whenever a drug is made illegal, as previous speakers have said. Clearly we need to allow our young people to know exactly what the effects of these sorts of substances are and try to persuade them not to take them, bearing in mind that most young people pay no attention to whether or not they are illegal. We should therefore put far more emphasis on and resources into education and far less into enforcement, let alone into making yet more substances illegal.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity for debate. The quality of speeches that we have had has shown that the House is good at debating issues of this type; indeed, my noble friend Lord Ahmad took a debate only recently on this subject. It is a good thing that we are reviewing policy in this area. As the noble Lord has explained, these new clauses seek to address the open sale of new psychoactive substances.
Lord Condon
My Lords, during my time as commissioner, I argued strongly for a fully independent and well resourced police investigation process. I have maintained that position since my retirement and I entirely support the motivation behind these amendments. However, I have concerns that Amendment 56QZF, in particular, is too prescriptive in the timescale available and that the notion of having 75% of investigators with a non-police background by January 2017 might, perversely, have the reverse effect of its intention. If it is a prescriptive requirement to get to that point, it may be tempting to employ people as investigators who are not adequately trained or have the right background to investigate these most serious and complex allegations. While admiring the intentions behind these amendments, I have concerns about the practicality of the timescales. I urge caution about such a prescriptive requirement.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I will add to the comments of previous noble Lords in support of my noble friend Lady Doocey and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. As I said earlier, 30 years’ experience in the Metropolitan Police left me wondering whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission was truly independent. We have seen recent cases where the IPCC has not only apparently not been particularly independent but has not understood when a case is serious. It was only after officers had given evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee about the meeting between the former Chief Whip and Police Federation officers that the IPCC decided that the case was serious enough to take on as an independent investigation rather than referring it back to the police to investigate themselves.
Another less well known case is that of former officers in the Metropolitan Police who have complained about the way in which the Directorate of Professional Standards conducted an investigation against them. A complaint made to the IPCC was referred back to the Directorate of Professional Standards in the Metropolitan Police for it to investigate itself, which does not give much confidence to members of the public that things are being independently investigated. Clearly, having a former constable as the director of investigations—somebody who is controlling how investigations are carried out—does not appear to me to inspire confidence in the public that the IPCC is independent.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon; bearing in mind that he used to be my boss, it would be rude of me not to agree with him, and I notice nods from the other former commissioners who are in their place. However, I will say that I spent 15 years in uniform and was made an instant detective chief inspector overnight, such was the need at a certain time in the history of the Metropolitan Police. I received a visit some weeks later from my detective chief superintendent, who said, “Now you know what the secret is”—that there is really nothing much to being a detective.
I agree that the timescale set out in my noble friend Lady Doocey’s amendment may be ambitious but it is something that we need to aspire to in order give the public confidence. I am sure that there are people in other walks of life, such as former customs officers, who have not only the skills but the experience to investigate these sorts of issues. People who have not had previous experience of investigations could be given the necessary training to carry out effective investigations into alleged police malpractice.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lady Doocey for not being present for the first minute or so of her speech. She caught me out by moving faster than I anticipated and I apologise, too, if she made this point, about the general reputation of the police service. I have some past experience, as a member of a police authority for some six years and then as constituency Member of Parliament. I had to deal with not only the police service but occasionally of course, unfortunately, with the IPCC as well.
The police service itself would welcome a greater sense of independence from the IPCC because there is a perception—we all know in politics that the perception is very often more important than the reality—that there is an overcosy relationship between the police service and the IPCC that is almost incestuous. The case that has been made on all sides of the Committee for reinforcing the IPCC’s degree of independence is extremely important, not just for the reputation of the IPCC itself but for the overall reputation of the whole police service, which, as we all know today, is questionable. It is sad to say but, for those of us who rate the police service very highly and have a great respect for it, its reputation for integrity is not as great as we would like it to be. There would be support from within the service for a greater sense of independence between the IPCC and police officers themselves. On that basis, I hope there will be a very sympathetic response from the Minister.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the other ex-police officer in the House this evening, it would be remiss of me not to add my comments to those of other noble Lords. I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Condon. I believe the arguments they have made to be powerful and compelling. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, spoke for long enough to have that accolade but we obviously agree as well. I also agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, said but as a member of a party which is part of the coalition Government, perhaps I should not go as far as he has done.
Unlike my former colleagues, who say that they have no argument in principle with Clause 126 and the appointment of foreign nationals to senior police posts, in that it would be hypocritical as some UK police chiefs have taken posts in foreign forces, never having applied for such a post I do not feel myself to be hypocritical if I go against that principle. My argument is about the culture of policing. As in many professions and businesses, there is a major division between workers and bosses. It is even more marked in the police service than in other professions. That may be because rank and file officers perform shift-work—they go out at night and are on the streets—whereas we senior officers are comfortable in our offices and work more reasonable hours.
Whatever the reason, there is a divide, particularly between Association of Chief Police Officers’ ranks and those of the federation. However, the one thing that binds us together is that we all, without exception, performed the role of a patrol officer—a constable on the beat—at some stage. We could honestly say when we were ACPO officers that we knew and understood what those officers were facing, at least to some extent. If a foreign officer was appointed, I do not know whether they would have that credibility with rank and file officers.
The second issue is the uniqueness of police leadership. Almost uniquely, police officers perform the overwhelming majority of their duties without any direct supervision. Their leaders are almost never directly present when those officers are out on the street. Police officers therefore have to have far more credibility than other leaders in the eyes of their subordinates, if those subordinates are to follow the instructions of their leaders. While it may not be impossible, it would be very difficult for a foreign national who has not served as a patrol officer, or a bobby on the beat, in the UK—a country with a unique tradition of being almost exclusively unarmed and which has a tradition of policing by consent—to have credibility in the eyes of rank and file officers. We therefore need to think very carefully about appointing foreign nationals as police chiefs in this country, notwithstanding what message that sends to the excellent police leaders who we have in this country as it is.