|
Column Number: 113
Standing Committee B
Tuesday 7 January 2003
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Clause 7
Codes of practice
4.30 pm
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): I beg to move amendment No.64, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 20, in
No. 65, in
No. 215, in
Mr. Allen: The amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the codes of practice. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about the possibility of effective parliamentary scrutiny. No doubt he has proposals on how to bring that about, and perhaps even some ideas on how parliamentary Committees could be involved. The amendments would provide that all changes to the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, whether subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament or not, would be published online a month before being laid before Parliament.
The intention would be to obtain the views of practitioners—people at the coal face such as police officers—who would have access to the draft and would be able to make sensible comments on it. Those could be taken into account in the normal process of consultation that happens when such provisions are drafted. It is important to allow people access to the process, so that we can learn from their expertise and so that we do not have to keep on amending the PACE codes of practice. Having the documents online would be of great assistance.
Amendment No. 20 is based on the proposals of the Home Affairs Committee and the intention is that major revisions or additions would be subject to parliamentary approval. Knowing my hon. Friend the Minister's deep commitment to parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, I am sure that he will be able to advise us on the best way to proceed.
Column Number: 114
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I wish you and the Committee a happy new year, Mr. Illsley, and I hope that the Committee will make progress in the next few weeks in an atmosphere of pleasant co-operation.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has put his finger on the drastic nature of the changes proposed in the Bill to the way in which PACE operates and is reviewed. When the Bill was first discussed it never crossed my mind that there would be so fundamental an alteration of the way in which the PACE codes were put together.
I do not want to speak in too general a way about an amendment that is very specific, but it is right to mention that PACE has always struck me as having stood the test of time rather well. When I was called to the Bar, PACE did not exist and endless hours of court time were taken up in disputes about whether the police had followed proper procedure in investigating an offence, in dealing with an offender, and in other matters. Once PACE came into force, it quickly commanded widespread acceptance, and my experience was that such disputes began to fade into the background. There was confidence that the police would implement the system properly, in a way that the public would consider reasonable.
I accept that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not written in tablets of stone, but nevertheless, it was envisaged that changes to the rules would be made through processes of widespread consultation, including a substantial parliamentary dimension. When one looks at the powers that the clause gives the Secretary of State in respect of the codes of practice, it seems to me that there is at least the potential—although I am sure that this was not necessarily intended by the Home Secretary—for changes to be made without any form of prior consultation. One of the questions that the Minister will have to answer in the stand part debate is what is the Government's reasoning for introducing such a drastic change to the way in which the PACE codes of practice are amended.
If there is to be a change, at least the amendment is a small step in the right direction, which is why I support it. The proposal struck me as sensible, if we are moving down that road. I see no reason why changes should not be published online, although I am afraid that my experience in the House suggests that, despite ministerial promises that there will always be prior publication, all too frequently we see something the day before it is put into operation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give the amendment a favourable nod. In doing that, however, I hope that we can initiate a debate about why the Government believe that they must change the old system, because I am not persuaded that it is necessary. If we are to change it, safeguards are certainly necessary, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North seems to me to be an eminently good starting point.
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): A happy new year to you, Mr. Illsley, and to other colleagues.
Column Number: 115
The amendments are important, as is the issue. It is interesting that in a great big criminal justice Bill like this, where press and public attention has concentrated on three or four issues, other issues that would normally arouse considerable interest have been relegated to the first or second division. This is one such issue, because the powers of the police, as part of the criminal justice process, relate to people's liberties. We are talking about the way in which the police use their powers. A concept that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) remembers was controversial when the legislation was passed in the 1980s is no longer controversial, because people, the police and legal practitioners—as well as those who regularly appear as what we might call recipients of the service—understand the rules. That is a good thing.
I will not anticipate the breadth of the stand part debate, but there seem to be five main areas. We are talking about stop and search powers, which are highly controversial; search and seizure; detention, treatment and questioning; identification; and tape recording of interviews. I want to deal quickly with the last one. Some of us were party to the debates on the recent Northern Ireland legislation. It is becoming accepted as normal that all interviews will be tape recorded, which is a far better way of proceeding. Indeed, it is my understanding that we are moving towards the televising interviews, as soon as the technology, money and resources permit, not only in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland, England and Wales, so the matter is uncontroversial. If people are satisfied that technology cannot be tampered with, and that its use is the norm, it will be much less controversial.
The other proposals are more controversial. They are administrative matters, but when we are dealing with depriving individuals of freedom and their treatment in custody, I share the view of many people outside the House, as well as of the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Beaconsfield, that we need to introduce changes carefully, building in all the proper safeguards to that process.
I have no problem with the amendments or with publishing information online. I have no problem with the work of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on this issue. I do not disagree with him on some of the substance of what he wants by way of police files. I agree with his procedural view that we are more likely to get things right if we provide people with information early in draft form so that they can make an intelligent contribution. To give a more topical example, if we had done that when deciding on the sentences for gun crime there would not have been two different Home Office positions in two days. This has left the Home Office looking thoroughly embarrassed on an issue on which the parties could have agreed and on which there has been much discussion to reach agreement.
On amendment No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—who apologises that he is on duty further down the
Column Number: 116
Corridor on one of the numerous Home Office Bills rumbling through Committee stage; there are three, and he is looking after one of them—and I take the view that we should not have a code or a revised code unless Parliament agrees. We are fully signed up to that. If the amendment is lost, the Minister will have to work very hard to persuade me that the clause should remain in the Bill.
I know that the police have argued that as matters have settled down this can be done through a much less formal and more flexible process. Parliament must sign up to these proposals. Only when such matters are being voted on do we focus our attention on the implications; otherwise they lie in a pile of papers on our desks, and no one notices the difficulties.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North makes a similar point about amendment No. 65 and seeks to persuade the Committee that we should have an affirmative resolution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I subscribe to that. I hope therefore that the Minister will tell us that although there is a case for flexibility in minor drafting matters that do not affect liberty, important matters will come before Parliament. The difficulty is in distinguishing between a change in the code to accommodate new technology or a generally agreed change to identification evidence or identification parades and proposals that will change the regime for custody cells and custody suites. That is the difficulty. We must ensure that we do not delay entirely reasonable proposals that would have been agreed to after consultation.
There was a review, predating the Bill, of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and that is perfectly proper. There was pressure from the police for greater flexibility. Effectively, the Government are saying that it will be sufficient for them to talk to police organisations and authorities and to those responsible for implementing the legislation. That is the wrong view. Although they are independent, they are technocrats, the servants of the state. The citizenry, who are the majority of the population, do not have the same representation; there is no Association of Chief Citizenry, no Superintendents Citizenry Association and no Citizens Federation. There must be ways of consulting the citizens on these matters, and as usual the minority will spot the difficulties in defence of the liberties of the majority. We must find ways of ensuring such consultation, and I hope that the Minister will persuade us to accept that small changes can be made without a big bureaucratic procedure while protecting everybody by ensuring that big or significant changes have proper scrutiny and parliamentary approval.
We must also ensure that the citizenry at large can have their say. Someone who is nicked on the Old Kent road on a Friday night or a Saturday morning may never have thought about these things before, but the powers, duties, rights and responsibilities given under the PACE will suddenly become quite important. They will be as important to Members of Parliament who get nicked, as recent evidence has shown, as to those who have never been anywhere near Parliament.
Column Number: 117
We should not delude ourselves that this is insubstantial business: it is very important, and I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the amendments. Indeed, I hope that he starts the new year as he nearly ended last year by generously agreeing that there is a jolly good idea on the amendment paper—and that he will put us all in a good mood by accepting it.
4.45 pm
|
