| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree that this is certainly a useful code and that it should go through today. I have only one or two points to make on the way past.
As the Minister said, it is to be pursued in pilots, at a cost of £2.1 million, in areas not too far away from the Home Office—in the more comfortable areas of the country, one might say, for the most part. That will no doubt lead to further development of the system and the methods of using it.
The Minister seemed a little worried about the possibility that different systems might be used in different places and thought that that might be undesirable. I think that it is desirable, particularly in the early stages, that different systems should be used by the different forces, so that an assessment can then be made of the best way of doing things.
I notice that this does not apply to interviews conducted under the Terrorism Act 2000. Paragraph 3.2 of the code states that there is to be separate provision for such interviews. That makes one wonder why paragraph 2.5 of the code—which provides that a police officer's identity need not be disclosed if the interview is being conducted under the 2000 Act—is necessary, as it seems to be repetitive. Furthermore, some of the recording systems seem to entail three cameras. It is difficult to see how an officer can keep his back to the camera in such circumstances. Undoubtedly those systems will not be used in such cases.
I think that I have solved the other point myself, but I should like the Minister's confirmation. Paragraph 3.3 of the code and subsequent provisions provide that, in certain circumstances, the custody officer should be given control over whether an interview is held. For example, if a room with the necessary equipment is not available, the custody officer can give permission for an interview to be held without such equipment. However, the Police Reform Bill, which the House is currently considering, provides that some detention officers may be provided by private companies. Am I correct in thinking that the custody officer covered by the code will always be a police officer even if some of the other detention officers are from civilian firms contracted to assist police in this respect?
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive explanation of the order, which I support. I trust that the pilot is a success for justice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Shutt, for their very brief comments. I had a difficult choice to make about whether to put all the details on the record. However, I decided that, because of the seriousness of the issue, people should be able to read a full record in Hansard of what we are intending.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was, as ever, very perceptive in his observations, and made one or two important points. His point on the various systems was both interesting and important. Although different technological systems will be tested, given that the recorded interviews will be evidence, it is important
that the interviews are conducted properly, fairly and consistently. We are trying to ensure consistency in approach, not necessarily consistency in the type of technology used. However, procurement being as it is, I suspect that we shall eventually adopt a specific form of technology.The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about detention officers and custody officers. He was right to make that observation on detention officers. The custody officer will always be a sergeant or above and it will be for him or her to determine whether the interview can take place. I think that that is quite an important safeguard which will help protect the rights of the interviewee and ensure that the interview is properly conducted in all circumstances. There will undoubtedly be difficult times with those who have been arrested and who face serious allegations and need to be interviewed, and there may well be occasions when an interview would be completely inappropriate because, for example, the building is not right. The individual cannot be interviewed in those circumstances.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to paragraphs 2.5 and 3.3. He said that they were similar and that they were not necessarily essential to the code. Paragraph 2.5 of the code has been inserted to allow for difficulties that might arise in cases of serious and organised crime as opposed to terrorist crime, although, of course, terrorist crime is also organised and serious. That is why there are two distinct parts to the code. We believe that the protections that have been built in for officers who may well conduct interviews with people suspected of having committed terrorist offences are very important to protect those officers from potential future threats and intimidation.
We want the measure to work. We are grateful for the support that we have received for the introduction of videotaped interviews. We believe that it will make a significant contribution to reducing delays in the criminal justice system and improving the quality of evidence. We have to be certain that we can ensure those factors in the future and that the benefits can be achieved in practice. That is why we are being cautious in bringing forward pilot schemes before a full roll-out.
To sum up, the scheme affords an important step forward for the police and criminal justice system to adapt modern technology to existing work practices. I have no doubt that we shall all literally watch with interest to see how it proceeds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [HL]
The Petition against the Bill from Southern Electric Power Distribution plc (No.3) was withdrawn.
- House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before three o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |