King’s Speech
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Accidental Prison Releases
Lord Paddick Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The number of people going to prison has increased and the number in prison will increase, but that is because reoffending rates are too high. Too many people are leaving prison still addicted to drugs and alcohol. Too many people leave with nowhere to live and then reoffend and go back in the system. One area in which I am specifically interested, and which connects with that question, is around female offenders, because I believe from going round women’s prisons that too many women are there because they are victims themselves or because they are vulnerable and ill, and prison is not always the best place to support them and their families.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I noted that two of the recent escapees were captured following information from members of the public. What does this say about public trust and confidence in the police and the importance of it?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. One of my roles over the last couple of weeks was to be on a number of calls with police colleagues, and it was clear to me what an incredible job they do and how well they link to colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, specifically on their day-to-day work in prisons. I often see police staff in the various prisons I visit and their role in probation is often overlooked. They work with us to ensure that people who stay on the right side of the law are still supported by police colleagues. In the work they have done with us over the last few weeks, their support has been incredible and we should be proud to have them as public servants.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Lord Paddick Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point; he is absolutely right. There is a specific problem, and a Bill is currently before the House of Commons. I do not know the timetable for that Bill and I will not speculate on it, but the noble Lord is clearly right that we need to get it right.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government understand why a pre-sentence report is more likely to discourage a judge from sending an offender to jail? Does the Minister believe that the result could be more accurate or appropriate sentences being handed down as a result of a better-informed sentencing decision? If he does, what is wrong with encouraging judges to ask for pre-sentence reports in such cases where, historically, sentences appear to have been disproportionate?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord’s point. As I pointed out, I ordered these reports hundreds of times in my previous role, and I invariably did it so that the sentencing bench could make a better-informed decision. The only times I did not do it were when I could see no alternative to custody. Of course, the same situation applies now as before: any judge can order a pre-sentence report at any time. The mischief and the problem that my right honourable friend had was the perception that if particular racial groups were more likely to get a pre-sentence report, there could be a political attack—indeed, there was a political attack—that this meant that they would be less likely to be sent to prison. She saw the perception of that as the mischief, and it was the reason she brought forward her Bill. She wants to find a different way of addressing the fundamental problem, which is the disproportionality within sentencing outcomes.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Lord Paddick Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. It is up to the independent judiciary to decide whether to request a pre-sentence report. What we do know is that in a number of cases they are very appropriate. We also know that our judiciary—in which many noble, and noble and learned, Lords in this House have taken an important role—is respected around the world. We need to ensure that that is maintained.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why judges requesting a pre-sentence report because they might not fully understand the background of those from different ethnic or social groups and might want to fill any gaps in their knowledge amounts to two-tier justice?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The independence of the judiciary and the fact that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law means that pre-sentence reports are determined by the judiciary, and it should stay that way.
Community Sentences (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Paddick Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am another interloper, I am afraid.
Sometimes the planets do align. This is a very welcome report on community sentences, and a Minister who believes that too many people are imprisoned. In my experience of over 30 years in policing, the biggest problem with low-level crime recidivism is the disruptive nature of short-term prison sentences, particularly to employment, housing and family ties, to the extent that it can lead such prisoners becoming institutionalised and unable to survive outside prison. I worked at Holloway, in north London, as a police constable. I distinctly remember an older woman who, having left the local women’s prison, made her way to the nearest store and blatantly committed shoplifting, hoping to be swiftly returned to the security of the prison. The local magistrate granted her wish. Short sentences can encourage recidivism, and community sentences can encourage reform.
As my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who so expertly chaired the committee and whose report we are debating today—and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, have said, community sentences can be tailor-made, enabling those subject to them to maintain the links that are so important in preventing reoffending. I am sure the Minister will agree that, if at all possible, any sentence should have the aim of preventing reoffending through rehabilitation, rather than by incarceration.
Committees always have to be disciplined in their focus to make their inquiries manageable, and this committee understandably decided to concentrate on community orders specifically, rather than other forms of community sentence, such as restorative justice sentences. It is on this subject that I wish to speak briefly.
Later in my police career, I worked with Professor Larry Sherman, now the Metropolitan Police’s chief scientific officer, on a Home Office trial of restorative justice, including those involved in serious offences that led to custodial sentences. The greatest positive impact was on victims of crime voluntarily coming face to face with their assailant, where the offender became a real person, not some monster in the victim’s imagination. In a legal system where the defendant can refuse to participate in the process, and where people in wigs and gowns talk to each other about something that is going to be done to them without their direct involvement, for the offender too, engagement with the restorative justice process can make them realise that the victim is not just another faceless target but someone with friends and family, and feelings. It makes their offending real.
Restorative justice is most impactful when it is not followed by the brutalising effects of a prison sentence. When restorative justice leads to genuine remorse and empathy and a tough but positive community sentence, it keeps everything in the real world that the offender inhabits, something that can turn offenders’ lives around and make the victim’s experience less traumatic. I could not let this opportunity pass to attempt to ensure that restorative justice is on the Minister’s agenda.