rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on
My Lords, the order has been seen and cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Lords Merits Committee on
There are currently six codes, and the order proposed adding a seventh: that of a code of practice on arrest. The current versions of Codes A to F came into effect on
Before I set out the detail of the proposed changes it may be helpful if I provide some information on the public consultation process and on the future more fundamental review of the codes themselves. The consultation ran from
That brings me on to the second area and that is the more fundamental review of the PACE codes themselves and the process of introducing change. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly stated during debate on the 2004 revision of the codes that the more frequent update of the codes was welcomed, but we have to consider that regular updating brings with it the additional burden of training on the police and, of course, on other agencies.
Work will be starting in February next year to look at how we can improve the form and content of the codes. This will include the potential incorporation of statutory guidance which can be subject to amendment administratively to take faster, more effective account of best practice and lessons learnt. This work will be carried out in consultation with stakeholders and practitioners from the police, the legal profession, the voluntary sector, charities and academics.
The advice of the Home Affairs Select Committee will be sought on proposed changes and parliamentary approval sought where required. The aim is to reduce bureaucracy and improve the implementation process through effective training arrangements, communications and implementation timescales.
On the proposed amendments, Code A deals with stop and search and the requirement introduced in all force areas from
Recording encounters has drawn much criticism in terms of bureaucracy and time taken by officers to complete the relevant paperwork. Technology, thankfully, is moving on and forces are looking at more effective ways in which to ensure the right level of accountability. In that context it is welcome to note that the Police Federation has commented favourably and that it recognises that the recording of encounters is a legitimate policing tool that assists the police in gathering intelligence, and that it is a necessary and important means of ensuring officer accountability.
It is worth noting that a recent study on good practice from the London School of Economics showed that 75 per cent of all stops took less than five minutes to record. These are all positive moves and a change proposed to Code A continues in that direction by allowing a police officer to give a receipt for a stop when operational requirements prevent him printing out a full copy at that time. This will, of course, leave unaffected the individual's right to follow up the matter if he wishes to do so.
Code A currently requires an officer to provide a record of an encounter when such an encounter has taken place. It also requires an officer to provide a record when the criteria for an encounter have not been met but the person requests a copy. In such instances the officer notes on the form that the criteria have not been met. We are proposing to remove the requirement to produce a record in such circumstances and minimise the ability of those who may wish to deliberately waste an officer's time by asking for a record when an encounter has not taken place in accordance with Code A.
Code B deals with the entry and search of premises and the seizure of property. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act introduces fundamental change to the warrant process by enabling the issue of the multiple-use warrant. Section 8 of PACE now provides for the issue of "specific premises warrants" for one or more sets of premises specified in the application; and an "all premises warrant" for any premises occupied or controlled by the person specified in the application.
Safeguards in the Act and Code B require that: every application to the court must demonstrate that the exercise of the warrant is justified and necessary; every use of the warrant must be individually recorded by the officer in charge of the search for scrutiny on return of the warrant to the court; and second or subsequent entry to premises specified on the warrant must be authorised in writing prior to use by an inspector not involved in the investigation. In the case of an all premises warrant where entry is sought to premises not specified on the warrant, prior written authorisation must be given by an inspector not involved in the investigation directly.
The need for prior authorisation of an inspector not involved in the investigation complements the existing safeguards requiring all warrants to be returned to the court, suitably endorsed by the officer with the details of the search and any items seized. Both are significant protections to preventing the warrants being used to carry out "fishing expeditions".
Concern was raised during debate in another place about the lifetime of the warrant. That has been extended from one month to three months. The extended period is appropriate, but we will provide in guidance that a warrant should be returned to the court at the earliest stage possible following completion of its operational use and not retained for three months as a matter of course.
Code C deals with police detention. The Drugs Act 2005 extends powers to test for the presence of Class A drugs where it is believed that the misuse of drugs caused or contributed to an offence. Exercise of the new provisions requires authorisation from the Secretary of State to test on arrest, on charge, and whether the testing applies to 14 to 17 year-olds. Code C reflects these changes and sets out the safeguards requiring consent and, in the case of a 14 to 17 year-old, the need for an appropriate adult to be present.
Drug swallowers and packers present a significant health risk in the custody suite and existing powers to identify whether a person meets this criterion has been strengthened. A new power to take ultrasounds or X-rays of those suspected of swallowing drugs is introduced, and a court can take into account the withholding by a suspect of consent to a procedure. Persons who have been charged under Section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (possession of a controlled drug) may be detained for up to 196 hours (8 days) on the authority of a magistrate where the recovery of swallowed drugs is sought. The safeguards in PACE will apply during any period of detention.
Code C also makes explicit that an appropriate adult is not subject to legal privilege. This simply echoes guidance issued jointly by the Home Office and the National Appropriate Adult Network in 2003. However, it is clear that we need to follow this up with more detailed and practical guidance which excludes the routine request for statements from an appropriate adult by the police but which sets out the criteria in which an appropriate adult may on an exceptional basis inform the police of information which has come to their attention as a result of their role. The appropriate adult is there to serve the interests of the vulnerable suspect, but also to serve the wider interests of the community. We will be working with the national association of appropriate adults, the Law Society, Children's Charities Coalition, ACPO and others to consider how best we can ensure that the interest of the suspect, the appropriate adult and the investigation itself are best served.
Code D deals with the identification of suspects. The proposed changes reflect the measures aimed at raising the ability of the police to identify suspects and minimising the ability of offenders to raise identity as an issue. Section 116 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 enables police, community support officers and accredited persons to photograph persons on the street where they have been arrested, detained or given a fixed penalty notice. That will assist officers with fine enforcements and avoid the offender disputing their presence at the scene when a fixed penalty notice was issued. It will also prevent suspects either reported for summons or issued with street bail similarly claiming that they were not the person the officer had dealt with on a particular occasion on the street.
The code puts moving and still images on the same footing and removes an existing anomaly in the code to allow for an unusual physical feature during a video identification procedure to be concealed or physically replicated on other images. Video identifications can be carried out far quicker than physical parades. This can increase the ability of the witness to identify the suspect and minimise potential stress to him, as well as reducing delays in the investigative process. At the same time, the changes to Code D will ensure that the procedure is a robust test of the witness's recollection.
Section 119 of SOCAP amends Section 65 of PACE to extend the definition of both intimate and non-intimate samples. The amendment allows swabs to be taken with consent from specific intimate parts of the male suspects and female victims.
PACE, as amended by Section 118 of SOCAP, allows the police to take an impression of a person's footwear with or without consent. An impression may be taken without consent only where a person has been arrested for, charged with or informed that he or she will be reported for a recordable offence and where he or she has not previously had an impression taken during the course of the investigation. Footwear impressions do not of course confirm a person's identity but they do show that a person was wearing specific footwear at the scene of the incident. That is why Code D does not provide the same criteria for footwear as it does for fingerprints or DNA samples.
Code D, like the other codes, focuses on the suspect. However, we have amended this code to take account of vulnerable witnesses involved in identification procedures and require that a pre-trial support person accompanies them.
I turn to Code E, which deals with the aural recording of interviews with suspects. Technology has moved on since the introduction of this code and it has been amended to allow the use of audio recording rather than the limited requirement to tape-record. However, the same safeguards remain in place.
Code F deals with the audio and visual recording of police interviews with suspects. No changes are proposed and the code remains as guidance which should be followed when audio and visual recordings are carried out simultaneously.
Finally, I turn to Code G. As I said earlier, this is a new code on arrest. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act introduced the power of arrest for any offence and placed an additional level of accountability on a police officer by requiring that he or she must show why arrest is necessary. The code makes it clear at the outset that the use of the power of arrest must be fully justified and that the officer should consider whether the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means.
The introduction of the test of necessity means that each arrest will have to be justified and it removes the concept of using this significant interference with a person's liberty simply because statute says that you have a power of arrest. The code sets out the criteria of necessity and makes it clear that the criteria are exhaustive. The circumstances in which those criteria are applied are an operational matter for the individual officer. The officer must have that discretion in order best to meet operational needs. The same discretion currently applies in relation to the powers of arrest under Sections 24 and 25 of PACE but—and it is an important "but"—the SOCAP arrest provisions now require the officer to consider, and indeed to justify, his decision to effect an arrest. That justification will be required when the officer brings a suspect before the custody officer and during consideration by senior officers, the prosecutor, the courts and, if applicable, the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Code G and the new power under PACE simplify a complex myriad of powers of arrest, as described in the Home Office/Cabinet Office review conducted in 2002. We have carefully followed the recommendation of that review to simplify and rationalise arrest powers, and Parliament has approved that change. Code G provides an important new development and, as with the existing and new provisions of all the PACE codes of practice, the contents will be subject to continuous monitoring and review.
I apologise for the length of this statement on the codes but they are extremely important and their revisions have taken a considerable amount of time. In some parts, they cover new and significant departures. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of these orders. We are reassured that they strike the correct balance between accountability of the police, streamlining of time spent in documentation and the protection of the individual. We support the orders.
My Lords, I endorse what has been said. We welcome the Minister's explanation of these orders. I want to raise three matters, however: stop and search powers; the execution of warrants; and the "appropriate adult".
A number of issues need further clarification. First, stop and search powers, under PACE, are based on reasonable suspicion. The police must have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. This has often been problematic, and there is ample evidence that these powers have often resulted in adversarial contact between police, young people, and persons from the black and Asian minority communities. This is not helped when the British Transport Police are reported to have said that persons of Asian appearance should not be surprised if they are searched more often—a statement made after
We now understand that the same requirements are placed on community support officers. Can the Minister explain whether this is the case? If so, we wish to know what training is provided to such officers to implement Section 23 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Would they be subject to complaints to the IPCC?
If, on the other hand, the Minister were to tell me that, under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, there is another power to stop and search, because that power is directed in a different way, we would want to know how a person being searched could find out under what power he or she was being searched. Will the Minister confirm that CSOs would play no part under the Terrorism Act?
Secondly, on the execution of warrants, how are these warrants to be scrutinised? If someone of inspector or higher rank is scrutinising, then we still have police scrutinising other police officers. This cannot be satisfactory.
Thirdly, the "appropriate adult" described under the code dealing with drug testing is often an important safeguard for young and vulnerable detainees. There is serious concern that it would be appropriate for the police to question an appropriate adult in exceptional circumstances. What "exceptional circumstances" does the Minister have in mind? I raise my concern, because important safeguards ought not to be eroded, and we want a proper record of our concerns and the Minister's explanation, so that there is no ambiguity in the implementation of these orders.
My Lords, both noble Lords have been very helpful in their comments. I am grateful to them for their support.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we have carefully consulted on the changes that have been made, and given careful consideration to representations received from a wide range of organisations, serving police officers and those who are affected by the changes in one way or another.
On stop and search, we ought to be careful in distinguishing between the powers available under Section 1 of PACE and the terrorism legislation. The latter provides that the power is exercised only in those areas designated by a senior officer. That needs to be precisely understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked a number of questions about stop and search, and I would like to reflect on some of the points that he made and provide him with longer and more thoughtful answers than I am able to provide from the Dispatch Box today. He also made some important points about the role of CSOs. Community support officers are generally recognised as having had an extremely effective introduction. I think the noble Lord supports the way in which they work. They are required to be trained and competent in all areas of work for which they are designated. That is obviously the responsibility of chief officers, who ensure that the designation does not apply to the exercise of stop-and-search powers. That would be going beyond their remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made a point about the execution of warrants. We think that the level of accountability and scrutiny is right for the way in which warrants are exercised. We have no doubt that they will work well and certainly they have worked well previously. I have little more to add on that, other than that all premises warrants must be shown to be necessary both to the court and to an inspector, independent of the investigation before entry to any premises not listed on the warrant. The proposals increase rather than dilute the evidence-based approach to applying for and executing search warrants. Warrants are scrutinised carefully by the courts when the endorsed warrant is returned. The exercise of it is subject to the scrutiny of an inspector who is not involved directly in investigations. Therefore, in our estimation, there is proper invigilation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also asked about appropriate adults. They provide a useful role and are not to be subject to the legal privilege. Guidance is contained in the National Appropriate Adult Network and Home Office Circular 2003. There have been carefully discussions between the Home Office and the network. I understand that the network is satisfied by the way in which it sees the system working. We are working with the network to review the guidance and are considering the ability of the police to interview appropriate adults. For example, that may be done only in exceptional circumstances and with the priority of a senior police officer. Exceptional circumstances might relate to the seriousness of the offence; to national security—I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the importance of that; to where there is suspicion or likelihood; to where there has been harm or injury to other people; or to where it is suspected by law enforcement officers that there has been collusion between defendants. I hope that that covers most of the noble Lord's points. Any I have missed, I shall seek to pick up outside the Chamber today.
My Lords, at this late hour, that would be helpful. Rather than giving me the answers that he has just received, perhaps he could reflect on what I have said and write to me at some stage.