| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I rise to speak for a few minutes about this issue. I know that the suggestion that more Bills should be dealt with in Grand Committee has arisen through what is called the Leader's group. A report about the decisions reached by the group and the reasons leading up to those decisions is now available in the Printed Paper Office. However, I know also that that report was already well along the way to being printed before the truly unacceptable experience that we encountered during the Grand Committee stage of the Employment Bill.
The Bill was debated for 10 days in Grand Committee. Quite honestly, it was one of the worst experiences that I have endured after 11 years in this House. Practically all the time, the atmosphere was not one bit conducive to a proper scrutiny of the Bill. Attitudes were adopted, comments were made sotto voce and not so sotto voce, and a lack of respect was shown for one person versus another. All in all, it was a pretty horrendous experience. I certainly did not think that I was capable of making the contribution to the Committee stage of that Bill that I wanted to make. In all seriousness, I was made to feel inferior and I was intimidated, and thus not able to contribute.
That is not the way your Lordships' House should work. Whenever I have contributed to the proceedings in Committee on the Floor of the House, I have felt that what I have said and what other noble Lords have said—even if those opinions are polls apart—has been listened to with respect. If the Motion is agreed to—as doubtless it will be—and the Bill proceeds to a Grand Committee, either upstairs or in the Moses Room, I worry that it will not get the scrutiny it deserves. I fear that there may be a repeat of the kind of attitude that I have described.
If the Bill is discussed away from the Chamber it will preclude the involvement of Peers who may not feel that they have a locus on the Bill but who may come in, listen to the arguments and then feel that they have something to say. That casual approach does not happen in a Grand Committee because the rooms are too small and the atmosphere is not conducive.
I hope that some thought will be given to the points that I have raised. The noble and learned Lord may care to check with those Peers who took part in the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill, which lasted for 10 days, and then decide whether or not we should proceed along this path.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the usual channels were involved in this decision and we agreed that the Bill should go to a Grand Committee—but, as my noble friend said, that was before the Employment Bill experience. I did not attend the discussions on that Bill for nearly as long as my noble friend but I did look in from time to time. I am aware that it was not a happy experience for some Peers who were involved.
As I read the proposals of the Leader's group, this Bill would not go to a Grand Committee because it is clearly a constitutional Bill. The appointment of the judiciary and the reorganisation of the prosecuting procedures are likely to be a constitutional matter and the Leaders' Group report suggests that constitutional Bills should not go to Grand Committees—although it also suggests that there should be an increase.
The Leader's group report will be discussed later in your Lordships' House but, in regard to this Bill, that is the way it has struck me.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as one who served, rather inadequately, on the processions and parades Bill, I found it the most demoralising experience I have had in 30 years in this building. If there is any way in which a true democracy can be given more of a free rein, we would all support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not attend the Committee stage of the Bill to which the noble Baroness referred and so I have no basis on which to make any informed reply. This issue has been agreed by the usual channels. No one suggested to me—I am grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, nodding assent—that anyone had had second thoughts about this Bill.
We all have differences about Northern Ireland but I have never found them to be ill-tempered, ill-mannered or discourteous. People are vigorous when they put their points of view—but the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I still speak to each other outside, I hope in a spirit of true harmony. I see him smiling, as I am.
The great advantage of a Grand Committee worked properly is that officials are there who are able to provide considered replies in a better way than in the Chamber. There is every opportunity for those who are interested to be present and also, of course what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, inelegantly calls passing tradepeople do come.
It was said to me that the advantage of the Committee stage of the Employment Bill was that 10 days were available to be used, longer than had it been held in the Chamber. We need time on this Bill and I ask your Lordships to conform to the convention—I know that it is not a binding rule—that if the usual channels have agreed then we should assent.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, if I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, he said that I was nodding my head. In fact my head was stone still.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will understand that I was not looking at him—although I shall now. He is shaking his head. I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, a completely different beast.
On Question, Bill committed to a Grand Committee.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Visual Recording of Interviews) Order 2002
2.12 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Visual Recording of Interviews) Order 2002, a copy of which was laid before the House on 15th April, be approved. This order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
We are debating the order which, with the approval of this House and another place, will bring into effect the code of practice on the visual recording of police interviews with suspects in police stations. The order has been made in line with the powers conferred by Sections 60(A)(1)(a) and 67(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It cannot have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House.
Under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. There are currently five codes of practice (A to E). Code E sets out the procedures to be followed for the audio tape-recording of interviews of suspected persons.
By virtue of Section 60A(1)(b) of PACE the Home Secretary now has the power to require interviews to be visually recorded at police stations. However, it is our intention at this stage that such interviews will be confined to a limited number of police stations to enable us to evaluate thoroughly the process before any decisions are made about its wider application across all police forces in England and Wales.
The effect of the order that we are debating today will, if approved by both Houses, be to bring the new code of practice into operation in the sense that it will
then be available for use and will regulate the manner in which the recording of interviews is to take place. The code does not of itself make the visual recording of interviews mandatory. A second order, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Visual Recording of Interviews) (Certain Police Areas) Order 2002, has also been laid before Parliament. It is that order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure, that will make the interviews mandatory in only those police stations participating in the pilot scheme. If, at a later date, we wanted to extend the pilot areas, a further order would be needed to make visual recording mandatory in the new areas.In accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Home Secretary has previously prepared and published a draft of the new code of practice, and has considered representations made to him about the draft and modified it accordingly. The code, entitled "visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects" was laid before Parliament on 10th April. The code of practice both ensures that the prerequisite to the pilot is in place and that the procedures are applied consistently, fairly and openly across the police stations participating in the pilot scheme in a properly regulated fashion.
The code of practice has been drafted in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service. The provisions of the code will govern the way in which interviews should be recorded visually. The code mirrors much of the existing Code E for audio-taping as it is the medium by which the interview is recorded that we are seeking to evaluate, not the process of interviewing.
At Section 2, the code emphasises the need for the recording to be carried out in an open and transparent manner to enable the suspect to have confidence in the impartiality and accuracy of the process. The scope of the interviews to be recorded visually, which are set out in Section 3, broadly follow the scope of those interviews that are currently audio-recorded. Additionally, we have included instances of anyone who is deaf or speech-impaired and requires sign language to communicate. The code also includes provisions emphasising the integrity and security of the process.
I should like to assure your Lordships that what we are proposing here is not contentious. We want to facilitate a pilot scheme that will enable us to undertake an evaluation of the visual recording of interviews with suspects, using both analogue video and CD digital technology. The aim of the pilot scheme is to establish the nature and extent of any benefits to the criminal justice process of visually recorded interviews compared with the present system of audio-taping.
The use of video-recording police interviews with suspects is by no means new. In this country, the West Midlands Police first introduced experimental schemes at two police stations in 1989, followed by the Metropolitan Police, West Mercia and Kent.
Elsewhere, forces are also considering or have already carried out their own limited trials of video-recording. In other countries, the history of having a visual record of an interview stretches further back. Canada first began testing its use in 1985.In this country there has been some hesitancy about extending the use of visual recording. In contrast, other jurisdictions regularly use the technology, and prosecuting authorities use the visual recording of the interview in the preparation of the case; and, where required to produce interview evidence in court, the visual medium is commonly used as the best way of presenting the evidence. That is the situation in most Australian states and throughout New Zealand.
There are several reasons why visual recording is still only emerging in England and Wales. One factor is that other countries have generally gone from a situation in which interviews were not electronically recorded at all to one in which they are video-taped. In this country, however, the first means of electronically capturing interviews to be introduced was audio-taping, and, following field trials in the mid-1980s, audio-taping was gradually rolled out nationally. The reason why audio rather than visual taping was selected at that time as the means of recording interviews was undoubtedly that video technology was at a relatively early stage of development and comparatively expensive.
But, as we know, in recent years there have been major strides in video and digital technology, with an associated reduction in the costs of the equipment involved. There is now a developing view, particularly among those who have experience of video-recording, that the recording of interviews in this way offers benefits over and above those of audio-taping. In principle, such recording offers an end to disputes in court about what actually happened during police interviews. However, without piloting the idea we cannot be sure whether these benefits can be achieved in practice. That is what we now intend to do.
There are a number of reasons why it is now appropriate to carry out an evaluation of visually recorded interviews. Perhaps the most compelling argument is that allowing the court to see what occurred in the interview room will considerably enhance the quality of justice. It is increasingly being argued that visual records represent the best evidence of interviews with suspects and are of considerable assistance in understanding the meaning of what was said during the interview. The benefits are not one-sided: being able to see the suspect as they are at the time of the interview may help establish innocence in some cases just as much as guilt in others.
There is wide experience from other countries to show that broader use of visual recordings in the preparation and conduct of cases is a viable option. In New Zealand and some Australian states, for example, videos are regularly viewed by prosecutors and the defence and shown in court in contested cases as a matter of course.
It may also be argued that developing the use of a visual record of an interview is a logical use of the available technology. When it was introduced back in
1988, audio taping represented the most cost-effective use of the technology available at that time in order to capture the contents of police interviews accurately and reliably. This is perhaps no longer the case and visual technology, in the formats of video and digital, has improved immeasurably.There is widespread interest among police forces in moving from audio to video recording. A number of forces have for some time used video recording, while others are actively considering doing so. There is a danger that without a lead from the centre a plethora of different systems, working to different standards and procedures, will develop, which will eventually need to be regulated. One purpose of carrying out research at the present time, therefore, will be to identify good practice and assist in the development of guidance, which will highlight the way forward.
Over the past 12 months, officials have been working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service and Lord Chancellor's Department to establish a pilot scheme by which we can undertake an evaluation of the visual recording of interviews with suspects. We propose that the scheme will take place at three police stations in each of the following force areas: in Kent at Tonbridge, Gravesend and Chatham; in Hampshire at Basingstoke, Southampton and Portsmouth; in West Mercia at Redditch, Worcester and Telford; in the Metropolitan Police area at Edmonton, Bromley and Colindale; and in Essex at Southend, Colchester and Harlow.
The pilots will last for 12 months, with an option to extend their duration to 18 months if further field data are required to inform the evaluation report. The scheme will be managed by an interdepartmental steering group, which will include representatives from the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service. The evaluation will be undertaken by an independent team from Goldsmiths College and the University of Kent.
As I said earlier, the aim of the pilot is to establish the nature and extent of any benefits to the criminal justice system of visually recorded interviews compared with the present system of audio taping. We will need to look very closely at what the independent evaluators have to say before arriving at any conclusions about how the use of the technology is more widely promulgated. However, as a way of determining what the advantages might be, this scheme really does offer us the first systematic approach for testing so many of the assertions that have been made to date. For those reasons, I commend the code to the House and ask the House to approve the order.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th April be approved.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page