Clause 7 - Codes of practice
Criminal Justice Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
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 I see no reason why changes should not be published online, although I am afraid that my experience in the House suggests that, despite ministerial promises that there will always be prior publication, all too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.