The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Beckett,
Margaret
(Derby, South)
(Lab)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Brake,
Tom
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
Foster,
Michael Jabez
(Hastings and Rye)
(Lab)
Fraser,
Mr. Christopher
(South-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
Jenkin,
Mr. Bernard
(North Essex)
(Con)
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham) (Lab)
McNulty,
Mr. Tony
(Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime
and
Policing)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Ruffley,
Mr. David
(Bury St. Edmunds)
(Con)
Glenn McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 21
January
2008
[David
Taylor
in the
Chair]
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2008
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
(Mr. Tony McNulty):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 (Codes of Practice) Order
2008.
It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Taylor. The order will introduce amended PACE codes of practice A to E,
with effect from 1 February 2008, should it find favour with the
Committee. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires that
before the codes are laid before Parliament, the Government must
consult the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of
Police Authorities, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Institute
of Legal Executives. That process was completed in September and
October last year and the summary of responses was published on the
Home Office web page. Additionally, we took advice in advance from the
Home Affairs Committee on the method of consultation and the process to
be followed before this
House.
In addition to
the codes themselves, I have laid the register of changes before
Parliament to assist hon. Members in identifying the proposed changes.
The register shows not only what the changes are, but who proposed each
change and why. I hope that members of the Committee have found that
information helpful. As they will see, many of the changes are
routinefor example, the codes will be updated
to reflect amendments in legislation or to correct typographical
errors. However, it might assist the Committee if I highlight briefly
the substantive changes to the
codes.
Changes to the
codes are a matter of routine and all interested parties exhort us to
bring them in at the earliest opportunity once we have gone through the
consultation. This measure is not to be confused with the wider review
of the entire PACE process that is ongoing and will continue this year.
The highlightsif I can use that phraseof the
substantive changes made by the order are in four main areas:
cautioning in Welsh, drug testing, the implementation of the Carter
review recommendations and audio recording of interviews. I will dwell
briefly on each of those
changes.
In code C, in
relation to detention treatment and questioning, in response to
requests from various groups dealing with the criminal justice system
in Wales, we have included a Welsh language version of the cautions in
the Parliament-approved versions of the codes. That is in response to
concerns expressed by, among others, the Lord
Chancellors Standing Committee for the Welsh Language, the
Welsh Language Board and police forces in Wales that as the current
codes provide the wording of cautions only in
English, legal representatives in court cases were seeking to challenge
where interviews were conducted in Welsh and the caution issued in
Welsh, but not English. The language of the changes has been approved
by the Welsh Language Board and replicates the published version of the
full codes in Welsh issued by the Home
Office.
On drug
testing, the changes to code C reflect changes in legislation on the
testing of persons in police detention for specified class A drugs and
include other consequential amendments. Those changes
include placing a requirement to attend a follow-up assessment on
adults who are subject to an initial assessment of drug misuse, and
changes to the drug testing trigger offences arising from the Fraud Act
2006. The follow-up assessment provides a further statutory opportunity
that enables drug workers to engage with those who test positive on
arrest or
charge.
The
changes in code C also take forward many of the recommendations from
Lord Carters independent review of legal aid procurement
through the expansion of CDScriminal defence
serviceDirect, which is a telephone advice service providing
advice to detainees at police stations who are arrested for relatively
straightforward offences such as drink-driving, disorderly behaviour or
minor assault.
Since
October 2005, the Legal Services Commission has been running a CDS
Direct pilot providing advice in cases that are suitable for telephone
advice and that would otherwise have been referred to a duty solicitor.
An evaluation of the pilot shows that CDS Direct answered 97 per cent.
of requests for legal advice within half an hour and generated a net
saving to the legal aid budget of £4 million per year. Following
the successful evaluation, the Legal Services Commission carried out
public consultation last year on expanding CDS Direct to the same types
of cases, but where a detainee requests his own solicitor. That will
see the net saving to the legal aid bill rise by a further £2
million to £6 million per year and ensure that more detainees
receive advice at the earliest opportunity. Importantly, the changes to
the Notes for Guidance 6B1 and 6B2 in PACE code C do
not extend the range of offences that are considered suitable for
telephone advice, but simply extend the service to include cases where
the suspect asks for advice from a specific solicitor.
The development of that system
follows extensive discussions between the Legal Services Commission and
the legal profession and the police. To manage the process effectively,
the expansion of CDS Direct to own solicitor cases will
take place in two phases: first, in Greater Manchester, west Yorkshire
and west midlands from 1 February; secondly, across the rest of England
and Wales from 21 April. That will allow any problems to be identified
and resolved quickly without compromising the quality of service for
legal aid clients. It is vital that the quality of legal advice is not
compromised, which is why the minimum standard that CDS Direct
providers have to achieve continues to be higher than that needed by
firms of solicitors.
I assure the Committee that the
CDS service will continue to apply only in appropriate cases. For
example, a solicitor will still be called to attend the police station
when the police are going to carry out an interview or identification
parade, or in cases where the
suspect is eligible for assistance from an appropriate adult, is unable
to communicate over the phone, or alleges serious maltreatment by the
police.
The expansion
of CDS Direct is vital to support the wider legal aid reform programme,
the aim of which is to ensure that the legal aid services are procured
in a way that provides value for money for the taxpayer, while
maintaining a steady income for lawyers and a quality service
for defendants. The Government reforms to legal aid, such as the
introduction of fixed fees, which the expansion of CDS Direct will
support, will give legal aid lawyers a tangible stake in the official
operation of the justice system at the police station and at court and
will enable the Government to purchase services more
efficiently.
Finally, with
regard to the audio recording of interviews, the changes to code E form
part of our ongoing work with the police to reduce bureaucracy and
increase efficiency and will enable Lancashire constabulary to pilot
the recording of interviews directly onto a secure digital
network.
At present,
forces must record interviews on tapes or other removable media that
then need to be sealed and stored securely. That has a considerable
impact on police resources because of the management and storage of
large amounts of data. The pilot will enable us to work with the
police, the National Policing Improvement Agency and other interested
partiesnot stakeholdersfrom across the criminal justice
system to assess the impact of using secure digital network technology
on the efficiency and effectiveness of the police and the delivery of
justice.
I trust that
the Committee will support those proposed amendments to the PACE codes,
which aim to improve the delivery of efficient and effective justice
during the investigative process in clear and practical ways that have
been consulted on appropriately. I commend the order to the
Committee.
4.38
pm
Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): It is always a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. It is
also always interesting to debate with the Minister of State, who
shares my desire to reduce the amount of bureaucracy placed on our
police. We might differ on the speed at which that process could be
undertaken, but our direction of travel is the
same.
I thank the
Minister for reminding us that there is a PACE review. The consultation
document that he issued in March 2007 and the regulations are part of
that bigger picture, and we need to keep an eye on PACE to see how we
can streamline it. It was an important piece of Conservative party
legislation, passed when we were in government in the 1980s, and the
new review that is due in March is also important. I remind the
Minister to keep me, as the Opposition spokesman on the issue, informed
of developments beyond these regulations that relate to
PACE.
The order
contains a lot of technical changes, such as those on Welsh language
cautioning, which I will not dwell on. However, there are issues
relation to code C and code E on which I would like to probe the
Minister. My understanding of the regulations is that the main thrust
of the proposed amendments to code C and of CDS Direct is to save time
in the criminal
justice system in the pre-charge phases, and reduce the amount of time
it takes the police and the Crown Prosecution Service
to come to charge, as the explanatory notes make
clear.
Since October
2005, the Legal Services Commission has piloted a
scheme, CDS Direct, which provides commission-funded telephone advice
to people detained in the police station for minor, non-imprisonable
offences, such as not appearing in court, bail jumping, breaching bail
conditions and drink-driving. At present, if an offender requests
advice from a specific firmnormally their own
solicitorsuch cases are not referred to CDS Direct and the
police contact the individual firm directly. The own solicitor is
publicly funded only for telephone advice given by that own
solicitor.
The
amendments to code C would make CDS Direct responsible for handling all
cases where telephone advice only is publicly funded. The Minister
described the estimated cost savings of that proposed change, which was
helpful. However, we have not had any other estimates. I am sure the
Minister would have approved and agreed to such estimates before
bringing this set of regulations to the House. In relation to the
following changes and the effects that they will have, what are the
estimated time
savings?
First, in the
case of an own solicitor who already knows the client in question, it
is surely the case that he will be able to dispatch advice to that
suspect at the station more efficiently than a duty solicitor through
the direct service that will be introduced by these
changes. Secondlya point made by the Law
Societya suspect is more likely to accept unpalatable advice
from their own solicitor, which they will be denied if the proposed
changes go through. A suspect will be more co-operative if they have
the right to go to their own solicitor rather than be forced to accept
the CDS Direct advice. For those two reasons, will not an own
solicitor be able to dispatch advice quicker that meets the needs of
the suspect, than someone on the end of a telephone line?
The third question relating to
depriving suspects of the right to have their own solicitor is this:
does it not make sense in terms of time saving for the case to be
handled from the initial arrest to final disposal in the court by the
same solicitor? Forcing the suspect up front to keep the original
solicitor until charge, which in this case would be someone on the
telephone line, prompts us to ask in how many cases there will be a
change of solicitor. We can envision a suspect being forced, initially
at the station, to take advice down the telephone line as a result of
these provisions. If, however, the case is to go to trial, he or she
might than have to change to a solicitor who is not giving telephone
advice, and might eventually have to go to their own solicitor. Then
there is the changeover dislocation of moving from one solicitor to
another. There could be a time cost, not a time saving as a result of
the amendments.
The
fourth point relates to the position of ethnic minority clients. The
proposals in front of us will affect ethnic minority clients,
particularly those who do not necessarily have a very good grasp of
English. The exception to allow clients or suspects who require an
interpreter to request the attendance of a solicitor in cases that
would normally only qualify for telephone
advice has been removed in the proposed amendments in code C, as I read
it. I wonder what advice the Minister has received on that
point.
My fifth
question relates to private adviceanother point raised by the
Law Society, which might well apply in a minority of cases affected by
the order, and which I think needs ventilating. At present, when a
client requests their own solicitor rather than the duty solicitor, the
police simply have to contact the named solicitor. Whether the client
is paying privately is not a concern for the police. The deal on the
terms of the private advice is to be struck between the suspect and his
or her own solicitor. However, under the proposed new system, if the
order is passed, in the CDS Direct cases, the police will have to
ascertain whether the client wishes to pay privately out of his or her
own resources before they know whether they should phone the
clients own
solicitor.
The effect
of the proposed changes is, in short, to remove the clients
opportunity not to take advantage of publicly funded solicitors
advice and instead negotiate a fee with their solicitor when they wish
to pay privately, or even to speak to the solicitor to ascertain what
the private fee is likely to be and, indeed, what part of the case may
be covered by that private-fee advice. The client is potentially
deprived of their right to speak to the solicitor if they only might be
paying privately; that is, if the suspect indicates to the police
officer that he might want to pay
privately.
In
some cases a solicitor may wish to provide pro bono advice to a suspect
in the police station, or a third party might be paying for the advice
for the suspect. But the client will not know at the outset whether to
ask to speak to their own solicitor, the pro bono solicitor, or the
third partys choice of solicitor. It seemsthis is
certainly the view of the Law Societythat the client will
simply be asked whether they wish to pay privately or not. If the
client states that they cannot afford to pay, they will not even be
given the opportunity to speak to their lawyer. The basis on which
solicitors provide advice and whether the client chooses to pay is a
matter for negotiation between lawyer and client. The proposed changes
in the order thus may remove the free choice of lawyer from the
detainee.
Everything
I have said so far relates to the minor cases that I listed at the
beginning: breach of bail conditions, drink-driving, and
non-imprisonable offences. However, another category of cases is not
subject to the CDS Direct regime. That is, more serious offences than
the ones that I have listed. My question relates to the expansion of
the defence solicitor call centre. The LSC proposes to route all
requests for publicly funded advice through the DSCC, whether the
client requests their own solicitor or the duty
solicitor.
The Law
Society is concerned that the wording of the proposed amendments to
code C of PACE is not factually accurate. I am sure that that will
concern you, Mr. Taylor, as Chairman of the Committee. Its
advice is that what we have in front of us is somewhat misleading. It
suggests that in paragraph 6B2 the following wording needs to be looked
at again:
A
detainee who asks for legal advice to be paid for by himself should be
given an opportunity to consult a specific solicitor or another
solicitor from that solicitors firm.
In non-CDS Direct casesthe more
serious cases that are funded by legal aidthe right to request
a solicitor of choice remains under the Governments proposals.
The only policy change is that such requests must be routed through the
DSCC. However, the proposed wording removes any obligation on the
police to ask a suspect if they want their own solicitor. If they do
ask, or the suspect spontaneously says that he wants a specific
solicitorhis own solicitorthey will be told that the
solicitor will only be contacted directly if he is willing to
pay.
We can see the
issue that might arise in a suspects mind, as that requirement
will inevitably give the impression that they can only use their own
solicitor on a paying basis, and otherwise must use the duty solicitor,
effectively restricting all legally aided advice to that provided by
the duty solicitor. In other words, it does not allow the
suspects own solicitor to be contacted, who then might be able
to access funding from the Legal Services Commission. By my reading and
according to the Law Society, it looks as though the measure pushes the
suspect to choose a duty solicitor, because the impression given is
that only a duty solicitor will be free, when we all know that in those
circumstances a suspects own solicitor might equally be chosen,
who could be paid for out of public funds, although that would not
necessarily be the case. The problem with the wording is that it gives
a contrary impression. I wonder whether the Minister will answer that
point, which was raised by the Law Society and seems a rather important
one.
To conclude my
peregrinations about code C, may we have an indication not just of the
estimated financial savings, which the Minister helpfully outlined in
his remarks, but any estimates of time savings? That is what Members on
both sides of the House are most keen to hear about. We want to support
changes that save the police and the Crown Prosecution Service
time.
Moving on to
changes to PACE code E, the changes relating to recordings of
interviews are important and topical. The Ministers proposed
changes would amend the code to allow the piloting of secure digital
networks to audio-record suspect interviews. We welcome and applaud any
initiative that seeks to take advantage of modern technology in a way
that will free officer time and allow them more time on patrol. There
is also a technological need to move on from the current system of tape
recording hardwarethe audiotape in the cassette player in the
interview room. That type of audiotape technology will become obsolete;
it will undoubtedly become less easy to purchase and repairing
audiotape cassette recorders will become more difficult, so I
understand the reason behind the change. However, I would like to press
the Minister on a couple of points.
I know that when we visit
stations and look at the procedures and the granular detail of what
takes time for an officer on an average shift, the Minister
and I both see that it is paperworkincident-related
paperwork and non-incident-related paperwork. A master copy of an
interview tape is removed from the tape recorder at the end of the
interview with the suspect. That is done in the presence of the
detained person and their solicitor, as it should be, given that that
is what PACE introduced in the 1980s. The tape is
then placed in a sealed bag. That is a particularly effective way to
demonstrate that there is an inviolable master copy of the recording of
what the suspect said, and none of us disagree with the importance of
that.
That system
introduced under PACE has virtually eradicated disputes in court about
what was said in interview. I am sure that the Minister would agree
that we need to be careful that any new system does not give a smart
defence lawyer the ability to contest in court the integrity of any
digitally recorded audio interview. What I and outside bodies are not
clear about is whether the digital audio recording could be tampered
with in any way. It would therefore be useful if the Minister described
the safeguards. Just to recap, it is quite obvious that when a cassette
tape is put in a plastic bag, as is the case now, it is sealed up,
bagged up and labelled. What will happen with digital
recordings?
Outside
bodies, particularly the Law Society, have said that it is imperative
that any digitally recorded interview be on a DVD or CD copy that is
physically sealed, in the room and in the presence of the suspect. Will
the Minister confirm whether that is the case? In addition, will
suspects have the right to receive a copy of their recorded interview,
as they currently do? I am sure that must be the case, but perhaps the
Minister could confirm it.
My second question is very
topical: what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the digital
recording is stored and distributed safely? Regrettably, there have
been too many high-profile cases in the past few weeks when
confidential and sensitive data have been lost. What could be more
sensitive than the digital recordings of interviews of suspects in
police stations? By definition, those recordings will often include
extremely sensitive and personal information. How will those recordings
be properly secured and transported with the utmost care? The Minister
is careful and assiduous, but there was nothing from his opening
remarks that gives me comfort that the data will be stored in an
extremely secure fashion.
I will shortly draw my remarks
and questions to a close, but first, in relation to code E, will the
Minister say how much funding has been set aside at Lancashire
constabulary to trial the new set of procedures? In addition, what are
the estimated cost savings and what are the estimated time savings for
the average officer who moves from audiotape bagging up to a new system
of storing digital recordings on DVD, CD or whatever it may be? Will
detailed evaluations be made available to the House? I am sure they
will be, but what is the time scale for the pilot, for evaluating the
pilot, and for publishing the results for the
House?
All of us have
an urgent and pressing interest in reducing the amount of bureaucracy
that impedes our police force from getting on with the job of
preventing, deterring and detecting crimepoliticians of good
will would all say amen to that. On the face of it, the regulations
seem to make sensible amendments to the PACE codes to try to speed
things up. I hope my questions have shown that it is not absolutely
clear what the time savings will be, particularly in relation to the
changes that will result in the removal of the rights of a suspect to
go to a familiar own solicitor, who might know the client and who might
have a language skill that someone on the end of a phone at CDS
Direct might not. There could be extra time costs rather than savings as
a result of the specific changes in code C.
In relation to code E, the
Minister will want to reassure the House about the storage of any new
digital recording regime. On that positive note, we are all in this
together in respect of saving police time.
5
pm
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I will not go
over the ground that was covered by the Official Opposition spokesman,
who did a very good job of concisely putting to the Minister the
concerns expressed in the Law Society briefing, which all members of
the Committee will have received. They are very valid points, which I
shall not repeat, and I shall listen carefully to what the Minister
says in response.
The
Minister said that the changes to CDS Direct were agreed with the legal
profession although I did not write down exactly what he said. Can he
please clarify precisely the Law Societys views on those
changes, as the briefing it provided suggests that it does not agree
with the changesfar from
it.
The Minister also
stated that CDS Direct will be rolled out in two phases. Will it be
possible to halt the roll-out after the first phase if the outputs,
which the Minister will be measuring, do not meet the targets he set?
The value-for-money issue is very significant and it has
already been raised by the Conservative spokesman. What assessment of
the potential increase in cost will there be if, instead of speaking to
their own solicitor, people are passed on to someone who has no
knowledge of their case? There seems to be a significant potential for
an increase in costs and time delays. Presumably, the Minister has
assessed it and can reassure us that what, on the face of it, looks
like a cost increase, will not in fact be a cost increase.
The hon. Member for Bury St.
Edmunds did not pick up from the Law Societys briefing its
anxieties about Bostalls, a police station agency that obtained a CDS
Direct contract. The Law Society expressed concern that as far as it
could tell that that company was not regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority or anyone else. I hope that the Minister can
reassure us that that information is not correct and that Bostalls is
regulated, as one would expect it to be.
I will not add any further
comments. The hon. Gentleman and I have put a number of points to the
Minister and I hope that his response will clarify the
Governments intentions, so that we can decide whether or not to
vote against the
order.
5.3
pm
Mr.
McNulty:
While they are fresh in peoples memories
I will respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. He
is entirely correct to say that we will roll out the proposal on CDS
Direct in two phases: Greater Manchester, west Yorkshire and west
midlands in February if this order is secured, and the rest of the
country in April. The reason for that is that if some or all the fears
suggested by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bury St.
Edmunds come to fruition, they will be taken into account in the
further roll-out if there is time, but if
they prove to be insurmountable there is an option not to continue the
roll-out nationally until those matters are dealt with.
I take all the points made by
both hon. Gentlemen very seriously. I do not intend to inveigle the
Committee into voting for something that will cost us more money and
take up more of peoples time, both police and solicitors. The
proposal has been running relatively successfully in pilot form since
October and many of the issues have not been as marked as
the hon. Gentlemen suggest. However, we will
seethat is precisely the reason for the phased nature
of the roll-out. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
will know that the area profiles of Greater Manchester, west Yorkshire
and west Midlands would capture some or all of the dimensions that
would be present in the national domain. It is appropriate to have such
a chunk of the country dealt with in that fashion.
I was going
to tell the hon. Gentleman off for raising individual companies: just
because a briefing paper did so, that does not make it the purview of
the Committee, although if it were not, you would have told me so,
Mr. Taylor. However, I should say in passing that on my
understanding, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has agreed that
Bostalls can operate CDS Direct, so it does conform with the regulatory
framework. If the situation is any different I shall get back to the
hon. Gentleman. I think that it was a fair point.
I am trying to catch both sets
of issues raised by the Opposition spokesmen. I note that the pilot
suggests that CDS Direct is substantially quicker than private
practice97 per cent. of calls were dealt with within 30
minutes. We and ACPO believe that there will be considerable savings.
Have we counted that out by the minute? No, but it is a fair point, and
one that we must take into account. I agree with the starting premise
in everything that we do in terms of the PACE codes. Without giving
away secrets, much of the thrust of the overall review of PACE is that,
as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds implied, it is working rather
well. Even though the Act came in in 1984 and has subsequently been
changed, as a broad framework it works effectively from both a
prosecutorial and a defence side.
Mr.
Ruffley:
A Conservative Government did
that.
Mr.
McNulty:
Well, bless them, they got one thing right. That
was very nice of themI think that they were smashing the miners
at the same time, so they could not do it all right at the time.
However, they should not spoil what was started. Matters relating to
PACE should broadly be cross-partisan or non-partisan and,
notwithstanding the comments made today, are invariably non-party, if I
can use that phrase, in the sense of both prosecution authorities and
the defence. Some of the strongest defences of the PACEs broad
framework, rather than the specifics that we are dealing with here,
have come from people with a very marked record and experience of the
defence side of the equation. This is about how to regulate the police,
not how to do it for the police, and we think that the proposed changes
will be quicker.
CDS Direct will offer three-way
telephone translation servicessomething that the private sector
does not offer at alland that is an advance. However, as I
said, if there are particular difficulties, not simply to do with
language but more in terms of the vulnerability of individuals so that
they cannot communicate by phone, that will also be taken into account.
Again that is a fair point.
With regard to the general
point about the code changes and the wording in terms of the DSCC, I am
assured that suggestions about the drafting of codes were considered by
the Ministry of Justicethat aspect is its baby, rather than
that of the Home Officeand it is satisfied that the proposed
wording and the training materials for the police are accurate and
clarify the access to free legal advice including the solicitor route.
I do not think that we necessarily agree that the wording is
misleading, but these are entirely fair points and I take them on
board.
As the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds suggested, in the first instance CBS Direct
applies to a very limited range of cases. Any changes in terms of cost
are relatively minimal but, as the examples I gave suggest, the savings
could be significant. Despite what I said, it is not about the wording
of the code changes. We are comfortable that people are very clearly
made aware of the fact that there is access to free legal advice,
including from their own solicitor, but firms that want to offer advice
must tell their clients about their disposition towards pro bono work.
I take the h gs point, but that cannot be the responsibility of
the police, especially in the more serious cases. Even when we move to
the CDS, it must be for the individual involved in a particularly
serious case to adduce whether his firm will represent him pro
bono.
On the point
about agreeing with the legal profession, as the briefings that both
hon. Gentlemen read out so eloquently show, there are still areas of
dispute. If I gave the impression that this was all done, dusted and
agreed by everyone I did not mean to. I meant simply that the
consultation phase, both in terms of whom to consult and the duration
of that consultation, was done, and done in proper order. The
consultation process is not about seeking consensus and agreement on
all these matters. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
knows, there is a good deal of broad agreement. Some of the areas where
there is not agreement will be picked up via the phased roll-out. We
will constantly want to feed those elements back in. I can give him
that
assurance.
Tom
Brake:
Just in case the Minister was not going to come
back to the issue of the CDS Direct phase-in, can he confirm whether
there are already precise identified outputs or targets that he will
expect the first phase of the roll-out to hit before he authorises the
April
phase?
Mr.
McNulty:
I think I can, but they are broadly to do with
the Ministry of Justice, rather than the Home Office, so it is not up
to me. On whether there is a Government view on what to anticipate from
the roll-out and the lessons learnt from Greater Manchester, west
Yorkshire and west midlands, both in terms of fine, granular detail on
the processes and broad outcomes, I think the answer is yes. If it is
not, I
will write to the Opposition spokesmen. As I have suggested, these are
matters that go across both Departments. Certainly, if the fundamental
lessons learnt from the initial roll-out between those three areas
point to great difficulties with the further national roll-out in
April, there is no compelling reason to go down that route simply
because we are locked into the process.
On the point that the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds made about the digital pilot in east
Lancashire, as the papers imply, the initial costs just for that
eastern division will be £12,000 plus a small amount for
training. The estimates from Lancashire are that just in that one
division they could save around £134,000. The pilot is for six
months in the first instance. Again, I take the hon. Gentlemans
point. Like me, he will have gone round police stations and come across
the cupboard with the tapes in. We must, as the code
does, move away from the notion in the original code, which referred to
a form of recorded media that can be translated and given over to the
individual, which implies tape-to-tape or
cassettes.
Given the
limited nature of the pilot it will be interesting to see what
direction it goes in. We think it will be effective. I certainly expect
that. There will no doubt be broader issues of concern around security
and access to information once it goes to a wider force base, let alone
nationwide. Given that the initial relationship is a definitive one in
the sense that only the police and the other side need access to that
data through, we suggest, password-controlled access to wherever that
is stored on the digital data space, I do not foresee the sort of
problems that the hon. Gentleman describes. Given that even in a
national system there will never be more than a limited need to access
particular summaries of interviews between prosecution and defence,
there should be no issues of access and security, if done
properly.
Digital
technology is well advanced, as is secure access to that technology.
The password-controlled access in that area is probably stronger than
in some areas, but none the less the pilot lasts six months and we
shall see. It is quite rightly restricted to the eastern division, not
even the whole of Lancashire, but it is an issue that has been around
for some time in a number of forces, if only because of the bulk of the
huge library of data and stored interviews that must be
maintained.
I think
that we will see from the pilot that there is no need for a master
tapethose may be famous last words. It states herethese
are not my words but I shall read them anywaythat the
system is secure and tamperproof. As I said before, the
digital dimension is secure and the number of people for whom we need
to make access possible is limited, but we will see. The system will
provide an automated audit trail of the authorised persons who have
accessed the file and the technology will meet industry standards on
security. The defence and the suspect, and no body else, will have
secure remote access. Access will be limited to authorised persons and
password-protected.
My short answer to the hon.
Member for Bury St. Edmunds is we will seethat is precisely why
there is a pilot. Although the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington might not have mentioned Lancashire, I think he agreed that
we are going in the right direction.
It is the formal process of how to get there that is the potential point
of contention, which is why we have adopted such a limited pilot. The
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will know, if he speaks to police
forces, that this is a bone of contention from their perspective and it
could be quite important. He will also know that on a non-party basis
we are trying to examine ways in which access and the general use of
digital data though such methods as hand-held machines work. They must
work in the right way, providing the outcomes that we both
want.
The secure
digital network has been welcomed by defence solicitor firms in the
north-west, which will be taking part in the pilot. They are confident
not only that the system is secure, but that a full audit trail is
available. They consider that a copy at the time of interview does not
serve a useful purpose with a secure digital network in place, but we
shall see. That is precisely why we have not gone for a full national
roll-out, lest we make mistakes and have to repent at leisure. It is
appropriate to do this in the way outlined in the reported changes. I
am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I will look at it
with a good deal of interest.
As I said at the start, I have
here my latest update for the hon. Gentleman on the wider PACE review.
I was going to give it to him today but we do not have a copy
available. I am happy to meet him and the hon. Member for Eastleigh to
talk in detail about the wider PACE review. The order deals with
matters that follow from ongoing processes and, as hon. Members will
see, there are some minor changes to the legal process that have
unfolded in recent months on the back of the appropriate consultation.
I repeat with vigour my commending of the order to the
Committee.
5.19
pm
Mr.
Ruffley:
May I put on record two points that the Minister
has attempted to answer, but which I am not totally satisfied about?
The first relates to the cost savings that he indicated in his initial
remarks, which I have no reason to doubt. However, I am rather puzzled
about how his officials can come up with a financial saving without
having an estimate of the time saving. The only way that one can derive
any kind of cost saving is by the amount of time saved by lawyers,
whoever they might be. I am a bit
puzzled.
To stress my
point, there are four ways in which the proposed amendments to the PACE
codes could increase the time spent by the criminal justice system
because of the changes to a persons right to use their own
solicitor rather than a duty solicitor. First, people might accept
unpalatable advice more quickly from their own solicitor than from a
duty solicitor. Secondly, the suspects own solicitor might know
more about the suspect and therefore be able to process the advice
given more quickly. Thirdly, if the case goes to trial, the initial
advice from a duty solicitor down the phone would have to be handed to
another solicitor who must be seen face to face. That would cause a
disruptive cost in terms of time. The fourth example of how these well
meaning proposals could end in more time being usedalthough we
hope they do notis where English is not the suspects
first language. The Minister indicated that the arrangements might meet
that case because there might be linguistic and interpreter help
on the phone. However, I am not sure that the first three points have
been answered.
The
Ministers comeback to those problems is that this is why we are
having a pilot. I understand that, but I refuse to accept that one can
derive a financial cost saving without having estimated a time cost
saving. The reason that I bash on about this is one with which the
Minister will sympathise: we are both trying to reduce the amount of
time that the criminal justice system uses up in processing
cases.
My second and
final point is that I think the Minister overestimates the faith that
members of the
British public have in the tamper-proof nature of digital systems. I
will not seek to debate that point, but will look with great interest
at the pilots. We look forward to an early indication from the Minister
on how quickly the evaluations will be done after the pilot has
finished.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 (Codes of Practice) Order
2008.
Committee
rose at twenty-three minutes past Five
oclock.