| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that I do not think that anything separates us. First, I think that the noble Lord accepts the importance of the code. Secondly, it is right that the effectiveness of the codes that we have so far have been proven and that they have been applied with sufficient vigour for us to be confident that the courts have been able to monitor them and make sure that actions are followed through.
I hope the noble Lord will also accept that all officers who have to arrest and deal with individual members of the public have had to familiarise themselves with the code because they are the ones who often have to undertake interviews and deal with other issues before the individual may be charged with any particular offence. Notwithstanding the fact that there may be variations and I cannot gainsay—I make it clear to noble Lords I have no information which would either affirm or contradict what the noble Lord said about the differences in practice in various parts of the country in different police forces—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not think I said anything about that, but if I had thought of it I would have done.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in relation to those matters, we do know that custody sergeants throughout the country have with due diligence applied the codes that we currently have. It would be reasonable to anticipate, therefore, that they will continue so to do. I reassure the noble Lord by saying that a large investment has been made to enhance training for police officers for those who will undertake what may increasingly become a more administrative function. I remind the noble Lord that we have invested nearly £2 billion in our IT system to make a number of the procedures more robust and to give them greater integrity than they have had before.
7.30 pm
It is clearly important that codes governing the treatment and rights of those arrested are subjected to proper consultation and scrutiny. There is no difference between ourselves and the noble Lord on that point; but I believe that the existing systems and safeguards under PACE are already sufficient for that purpose. Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sets out a statutory list of consultees that my right honourable friend the
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1252
Secretary of State must consult before the PACE codes or revisions to them can be laid before Parliament. Persons to be consulted include persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; persons whom he considers to represents the interests of chief officers of police; the General Council of the Bar; the Law Society of England and Wales; the Institute of Legal Executives; and such other persons as he sees fit. So there is a very broad spectrum that my right honourable friend or his successors in title could consult.
The last item on the list that I mentioned is very important, because the Government have interpreted it very widely. There are a further 20 or so organisations that are consulted as a matter of course; those include organisations such as Liberty, Justice, the Police Federation, Centrex—which is the police training organisation—the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Coalition of Children's Charities. So I can provide to your Lordships a comprehensive list of consultees if required, but I think that I can equally address the crux of the noble Lord's amendment of engaging experience and practitioner knowledge in an advisory capacity for the preparation of the draft code and its implementation. Again, I invite the noble Lord to remember the provisions established for amendment of the PACE codes; we have a register of changes page on the Home Office website where stakeholders, practitioners and members of the public can submit suggested changes and improvements. So all suggestions are placed on the register, and we as a department are held to account in a very public way in taking forward those suggestions. Officials have had bilateral meetings with key stakeholders on the main areas of change and work closely with organisations and agencies during the drafting process.
I hope from what I have said that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that he was right to say that we need to consult; he was right to say that consultation has to be broad; he was right to say that training is of importance—and consistency of application, too. I hope that, bearing in mind that we are in such ripe agreement, he will feel able to withdraw and not to press his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister never ceases to astonish me with the emollience of her refusals. I am obliged to her for reminding me of the provisions of the PACE Act, which I took through this House 22 years ago—twice, in fact, because a general election intervened, and I had to come back at it. I have been rather leery of prelegislative scrutiny ever since, because the second run was actually longer than the first.
I should just like to leave a couple of comments in the Minister's mind, as there is one thing that I forgot to mention. I understand that the police training centres at both Hendon and Cwmbran, from where I hoped two members of the committee would have been drawn, are to be closed or dispersed later this year, and that the training will therefore become more regional and less uniform. Secondly, as the Minister
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1253
mulls over her speech in Hansard over breakfast tomorrow morning, the words "due diligence" might strike her, when she remembers that a number of police officers in four of the constabularies involved did not start training their custody officers until 12 weeks after they had started being custody officers. That said, I think that I have awakened interest in the proper quarters. It is possible that someone might look at the training of custody officers, which is overdue for a shake-up. Otherwise I am content and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 83:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the wording of extent provisions relating to Crown dependencies raises various technical questions and some formulations permit parts, possibly amounting to all the parts of an Act, to be extended, while others assume that the whole of the Act will be extended. The second approach means that if certain parts of the Act are not to be extended, it is necessary to use the power to omit those parts, rather than to seek only to extend those parts that need to be extended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Seizure and forfeiture of terrorist publications]:
Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 83A:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very small amendment, but it has got me extraordinarily excited because I got such an ungracious reply when I tabled it in Committee. I am simply taking exception to the use of the phrase:
rather than "the grounds for"—
I was told that the two phrases had exactly the same meaning and, if it was not necessary to change, it was necessary not to change. However, there is a very good rule in legislation to maintain consistency. I ask whichever Minister is going to reply if they will take the Bill in their hand and look at Clause 33, on page 33, line 27, where they will find the words "grounds for believing". When that has sunk in, could they turn back to Clause 26, on page 27, line 18, where they will find "grounds for believing"? Will they then look at the heading of Clause 24, on page 24, line 12, where they will find the phrase "grounds for extending"? There is a little latitude allowed; the first line of Clause 24 says "grounds on which", but that is a different grammatical construction. So wherever that grammatical construction is used throughout this Bill, except in this one silly, insignificant place, they have got it right—and then they refused to change it.
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1254
This is an issue on which, if it makes no difference, the House will agree with me that the change should be made to save the waste of time of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, calling a Division. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |