Fourth Standing Committee
on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 22 June 2004
[Mr. David Taylor in the Chair]
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2004
9.55 am
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2004.
I welcome you to the Chair on this beautiful morning, Mr. Taylor. I knew there was a good reason for starting Committees at this time.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has seen the order, which will, subject to the approval of the House and another place, bring into effect from 1 August 2004 revised codes of practice in connection with police powers. Under sections 60, 60A and 66 of PACE, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. There are six codes. The current versions of codes A to E came into force on 1 April 2003, and code F was introduced in May 2002.
The proposed amendments primarily reflect changes arising from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We have also made minor revisions to code F. Although that code does not place a statutory requirement on the police to record all interviews visually—usually by video recording—it provides important instruction on the procedures to be followed when such a process is used. The codes reflect the statutory duties placed on the police and help to set out how best the relevant legislation can be applied in regulating police powers and procedures in the investigation of crime. The codes also set down protections for members of the public.
In the past, the codes have been subject to amendment every four or five years, but that is inconsistent with the aim of the codes, which was to reflect current statutory requirements and best practice. Consequently, we intend to update the codes more frequently, and potentially annually.
Members of the Committee with experience of the codes will know that the exercise of amendment can take up considerable resources in the form of departmental, stakeholder and parliamentary time. The stakeholders are such organisations as the Association of Chief Police Officers and Liberty, which have an interest in the content of the codes and have to be consulted on their amendment. Because the exercise can take up considerable resources, section 11 of the 2003 Act provides an ability for the laying of an order before Parliament and for limited consultation to be undertaken beforehand.
Column Number: 4
We acknowledged concerns raised during the passage of the 2003 Act about the potential for changes of significant scope to be made without relevant parliamentary scrutiny. In response, we provided an undertaking to refer to the Home Affairs Committee for its views on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny to be undertaken in respect of any revisions. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on that Committee for examining these proposals. In accordance with its views and wishes, we are proceeding through the draft affirmative resolution process and we have circulated to members of this Committee the exchanges of correspondence between my Department and the Select Committee.
The Select Committee considered that, in at least two cases, the proposed changes to the codes represented more than simply implementing existing legislation, and on that basis they merited parliamentary consideration. I will deal with those issues, among others, as I deal with the main changes proposed to the codes.
I shall start with code A. We have introduced recommendation 61 of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report, requiring police and community support officers to provide a record of stops where no search takes place. That is an important lever for positive change, to make police stops more transparent and accountable. We have amended code A to take account of the extension of the powers to stop and search provided by section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into effect on 20 January 2004. That provision allowed the police to stop and search for articles for use in destroying or damaging property. It clearly required an extension of the code, which the amendments put in place.
In code B, we have proposed amendments to take account of section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which also came into effect on 20 January 2004. It provides powers for persons accompanying a police officer in the execution of a warrant to seize anything to which the warrant relates, provided that the person is in the company and under the supervision of a constable. For members of the Committee who might wonder what sort of person may accompany a police officer in the execution of a warrant, the best modern examples are a person with computer expertise who might be able to access a computer's memory and who might be needed to attend with a police officer, or a forensic accountant who might be a helpful person to accompany a police officer on a search to examine papers to identify what might be useful in an investigation of a complicated financial matter. The attendance of such persons is not only of assistance to the police in limiting what is relevant to the investigation, but provides some security for the person whose property is being investigated, so that searches do not become fishing expeditions, producing large amounts of paper or other information to be taken away.
We have proposed the amendment to code B in relation to the seniority of an officer in charge of a search carried out in accordance with schedule 1 of PACE or under schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Column Number: 5
The Home Affairs Committee thought that the provisions required the parliamentary scrutiny that it identified and which it acceded to. Both schedules—schedule 1 of PACE and schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act—require a warrant to be issued under the authority of a circuit judge, so there is a significant degree of supervision in respect of granting the power to carry out the search in the first place.
The requirement in the code for an inspector to be in charge of the search—the requirement to be amended—is not a statutory requirement. It was a procedural introduction when PACE code B was first published in 1985. We propose to amend that to the senior officer present who may or may not be a constable. We acknowledge concerns about any potential dilution of the police presence, but the aim is to provide consistency with other parts of the code and alignment with more recent legislative provisions such as that contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. No other part of code B requires an inspector's presence.
We have to take account of advances in the training of police officers since 1985. There have also been significant increases in accountability in terms of the complaints and discipline processes, not least in the establishment of the independent Police Complaints Commission in April this year. The safeguard of an inspector being present during searches under schedule 1 of PACE or schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act was to ensure that the search is conducted with discretion and in a manner that causes the least possible disruption to any business or other activities carried out on the premises. However, all searches are now required to be conducted in that way. A constable exercises the powers of entry, search and seizure on a regular basis, and the training and accountability will help to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained.
We want to make the best use of police resources and ensure the effectiveness of investigation. Making the best use of all ranks within the police service helps to deliver improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, which benefits the service and, importantly, the public. We must ensure that resources are effectively applied. We believe that the change helps to achieve those aims while maintaining the crucial safeguard that, whatever the rank of the officer executing a warrant, the warrant is issued under the authority of a circuit judge and is clearly subject to the supervision that that entails.
In code C, we are proposing a number of significant amendments: the presence of the arresting officer when a suspect is brought before the custody officer; the requirement to record a suspect's property; the role of the Crown prosecutor in the charging process; and the incorporation of the drug-testing provisions previously contained in statutory instrument No. 2003/7047. We have also made a number of small but important changes to improve the safeguards for the individual—for example, making available the notice of rights and entitlements in audio format in a number of languages for the benefit of those with limited sight.
Column Number: 6
Importantly, we have not removed the need for the arresting officer to be present when the detainee is brought before the custody officer on arrival at the police station. Neither code C nor PACE requires the attendance of the arresting officer. Code C and PACE require any comments by the suspect on the arresting officer's account to be recorded. That clearly implies that the arresting officer's account has to be put to the suspect, but it does not imply that it has to be done by the arresting officer. In practice, it has been inferred that it does have to be done by the arresting officer, and this clarification of code C is designed to correct that impression, which gave rise to concerns. Clarification of the requirement will have the beneficial effect of saving arresting officers from unnecessarily attending the police station for every suspect. It will allow front-line officers to remain on the street without the need to travel to and from police stations. That is particularly useful in public order situations, and provides for more effective use of designated detention staff to take suspects to the police station.
We all acknowledge that the public consider the presence of a uniformed officer on the street to be reassuring and a key indicator of safety in the community. That is why we now have record numbers of police officers, and why we want to see them engaged as much as possible in front-line duties. I do not suggest that arresting officers will not continue in certain circumstances to take suspects in front of the custody officer, but we should enable operational officers to determine whether they are best deployed on the street, or whether there is a real need for them to be in attendance at the police station.
Such decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. However, we should make it possible for officers, particularly those with experience, to have that element of discretion and to be able to exercise it in the comfortable knowledge that the code supports them.
| 
