Clause 38
Policing and Crime Bill
10:45 am
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)
These amendments get to the core of the debate on clause 36. It is not the principle of what we are seeking to achieve that is at stake but the mechanism and detail of how we do it. In essence, clause 36 and related clauses extend the power to search and seize property before conviction, before proceedings have commenced and on the suspicion of reasonable cause by the police officers involved. During the Committee’s evidence sessions, both Liberty and the Bar Council, for example, expressed concerns about that power.
When Paul Evans, the director of intervention at the Serious Organised Crime Agency, gave evidence on 27 January, he argued that these changes were largely technical, backed up by the experience of policing in this area since 2002, but the Bar Council argued that they were substantial, and not technical, changes. Martin Evans of the Bar Council said:
“The Bar Council has no objection to the principle that, in effect, personal assets—cars, jewellery or household effects, and other such things—could be detained under this power.”
However, he went on to say that the Bar Council had particular concerns about moving to a lower tier of oversight—from the Crown court to magistrates:
“The proposal permits, on an application to the magistrates, the property to be detained indefinitely. That is a concern because, as I said, it introduces a lower tier.”——[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2009; c. 86, Q141.]
Liberty has said similar things. Collectively the argument is, what is the evidence that the current restraint system is not working properly? Paul Evans argued that the experience of the past five to six years indicates the system is not working adequately and requires those changes. What is the evidence that the current powers are not adequate? Above all, why are we moving from Crown court supervision to the lower tier of magistrate supervision? The Minister has not explained why we are taking that step in the Bill, yet it is a fundamental one in the eyes of organisations such as the Bar Council and Liberty.
Another question arises from the code of practice. The Minister has reassured us at various points that the Government and the police are not seeking to infringe human rights. They have to take into account European declarations on human rights. When Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire, gave evidence, he said that, of course, human rights infuse everything they do. Much of this is going to be wrapped up in regulations in the code of practice, which we have not yet seen. Liberty expressed concern that such a major step should be taken based on regulations in a code of practice that is yet to be seen, rather than on regulations in primary legislation.
At the crux of these amendments is the question of why we should move from Crown court supervision to a lower tier of magistrates. That raises related questions regarding the evidence that we need to adopt these new powers, as well as what is going to be in the code of practice and when we are going to see it—it is not sufficient just to receive reassurances from the Minister.