King’s Speech

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as an adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service, and I intend to focus on the importance of diversity in policing and the Government’s police reform proposals. His Majesty’s most gracious Speech describes how Ministers will defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference. I have witnessed the Minister defend those values from the Dispatch Box.

This country’s unique system of policing by consent is based on the Peelian principles of 1829. The principles speak of the power of the police being dependent on public approval and their ability to secure and maintain public respect. As this country becomes more diverse, the police have a duty to provide an appropriate and professional service to everyone, no matter their colour, culture or ethnic origin—to borrow from Sir William Macpherson’s definition of institutional racism—extended now to other sections of society that have particularly lost confidence in the police: women, LGBT+ and disabled people.

The police need to secure the trust and confidence, public approval and co-operation of law-abiding citizens in every community if they are to be effective in the prevention of crime, the preservation of public tranquillity and in bringing offenders to justice. The police rely on fellow citizens to inform, assist and co-operate with them. Treating everyone with dignity and respect, respecting difference, is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in a diverse society.

On the police reform proposals, it makes complete sense to brigade national policing functions, such as counterterrorism, under one leading organisation. The system of police and crime commissioners concentrates too much power—and now, without exception, party-political power—in the hands of one individual, particularly in the hiring and firing of what are supposed to be apolitical chief constables. There is always a danger of personal or political—with a small p —differences resulting in good chief constables being sacked because of these differences and good chief police officers not applying for important posts because the incumbent deputy has a close relationship with the PCC. The abolition of police and crime commissioners is a step in the right direction. However, many directly elected mayors are the police and crime commissioners for their areas, and similar arguments apply. This reform does not appear to me to go far enough. Do the Government have proposals to address the issue of potential personality differences?

The amalgamation of police forces from the current 43 has been on the agenda for decades. There are efficiency savings to be had, but there is a considerable initial cost in terms of rebadging, reorganising, culture and public perception. Police officers have an allegiance to their forces, and in Scotland many citizens felt that they had lost touch with their local police force with the establishment of Police Scotland. When crime is lower, public confidence in the police is higher, and there is money in the bank. Having learned the lessons from Police Scotland, force amalgamations may be the right way to go. What is the Government’s timetable for these reforms?