| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
8 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, these changes to the code address some important principles. One of the more cheering aspects was that, the other day, the other place fully debated this order, unlike the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I have drawn on the Minister’s reply there in some of my comments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord West, for giving us the benefit of his view on the changes and I hope that some of my questions, which follow on from Tony McNulty’s comments, will be appropriate.
The suspect’s access to legal advice and their choice of solicitor in providing such advice is crucial. It seems that this code is now moving towards a two-tier justice system, which is a surprising thing for this Government to be aiming for; I would have thought that they were aiming to give more equal justice to all. If I interpret correctly what the Minister said, if you pay you can get your own solicitor if you want to, and if you do not pay you do not. That really is a two-tier system.
Are those things that are considered minor classified according to the tariff that they would incur should the case go to court and the person be found guilty? A minor assault might not be so minor when you look at the tariff for it. How was the issue of the minor matter decided, or will it be up to the judgment of the police in particular cases? That issue deeply concerns these Benches, because the police would arrest and detain a person, and the police would then make a judgment on whether the case was minor. The Minister mentioned cases of serious maltreatment, but again who will judge that? It will be the police, I presume, in the first instance, who will judge whether the suspect has been seriously maltreated by the police. That is certainly not without its problems.
I gathered from the other place that the proposal on CDS Direct will be rolled out in two phases: Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands in February and, if this order is passed, the rest of the country in April. That leaves only one
23 Jan 2008 : Column 298
In the first evaluation, in some 8 per cent of cases CDS Direct found, on providing initial telephone advice, that one of the exceptions requiring attendance of the suspect in person applied and it had to pass the case back to the duty solicitor. In 22 per cent of other cases, the matter had been misdirected. In other words, in nearly a third of cases the police had assessed the situation and got it wrong, which is pretty bad for the suspect and a waste of everyone’s time at best—at worst, it threatens or actually affects adversely the suspect’s rights. What sort of thing would constitute serious maltreatment? If, for example, someone was arrested who should be taking medication and they were denied that medication, would that constitute serious maltreatment? Where would a suspect be able to find any reference to what constituted serious maltreatment? How are they going to know whether something constitutes serious maltreatment and therefore be able to ask for their case to be dealt with in a way other than CDS Direct?
The Government have introduced NHS Direct, of which I am quite a fan, so I am willing to accept that the system may have some benefits. I hope that some of the fears that I have expressed will not be realised.
Lancashire is to pilot Code Echo, and I concur with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about security. I agree that perhaps having a concurrently recorded CD that was sealed would be a satisfactory answer. The idea of having password access only is laughable when you realise what people can hack into and change digitally. If you have something that is not sealed in the presence of the suspect and is merely held in a password-access way, a digital alteration would be impossible to detect. If you get a clever hacker—we know that there are some very clever hackers out there—it is possible to think of some really quite serious situations arising. That is a cause for concern, and I hope that the Government will look further at that issue.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, as I have come to expect, some useful and pertinent points have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Miller, and I think that I can address those. I reiterate that, overall, this will give the Government better value for money, and there are safeguards that cover the issues that were raised.
On the accusation that the system impinges on the right to seek advice from one’s own solicitor, detainees can have their chosen solicitor under these circumstances. The principles of how this is achieved are set out clearly in Code Charlie. The Law Society, ACPO and the Legal Services Commission have agreed on the operational detail of how the service of a chosen solicitor where the detainee wishes to pay privately or receive advice pro bono—because that can be done—is secured through the DSCC. These operational details are contained in the guidance issued to custody officers and are consistent with the amendments to Code Charlie that we are considering at the moment.
23 Jan 2008 : Column 299
Both noble Baronesses asked about the custody officer being required under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to determine on arrival at a police station whether a person suffers in any way from any form of vulnerability. That also includes language and ability to speak English. CDS Direct has access to what is effectively a call centre—it is rather more than that—which does immediate translation and covers a huge number of languages. It has proved extremely effective.
Concern was expressed about the security of the digital network, recordings being sealed and keeping recordings. The purpose of the pilot, which is planned to last for six months, is to reduce and not to retain bureaucracy. It will trial a secure, tamper-proof system that will enable only authorised persons to access recordings. It provides automated audit, thereby increasing rather than reducing security and accountability. I admit that sometimes in performance these things have not been as good as one might hope. We will have to look at that extremely carefully to ensure that it delivers what we expect. With regard to the pilot itself, that aspect covers the issue of records being kept securely, which both noble Baronesses touched on.
The caution can be given just in Welsh. I thought that I might be asked about that and I actually have a bit of Welsh to answer it with, but I am wary of doing so because my pronunciation would be poor. Also, in Hansard, I would probably find that the person who gave it to me had stitched me up and I was saying something totally different. I dare not say it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of serious maltreatment. That depends on the professional judgment of the CDS Direct adviser, who is legally skilled and competent. There is also a responsibility on the custody officer to ensure that that is covered. Regarding evaluation, we have been running a pilot scheme since 2005 and, as I mentioned, we have been getting good results. With regard to what is considered a minor matter, we are looking at non-imprisonable offences, such as drink-driving, although clearly not where someone has killed someone, and breach of warrants or bail. I hope that that covers most of the points that were raised. If it does not, I am happy to come back in writing or to talk outside the Chamber.
This represents extremely good value for money and is just the sort of thing that we need to do. It will give a better service to people, as they will be able to get a response very quickly. Often in these circumstances people are keen to get out of police custody, and this achieves that as well as giving them a good service. It is vital that we continue to do all that we can to improve the delivery of justice and I am glad that these points were raised today. As both noble Baronesses said, there are important points in this order; it is not something that should just go through on the nod.
It is essential that the PACE codes maintain their relevance and accuracy because they ensure that we have systems in place during investigative processes that are fair and robust and protect the individual’s
23 Jan 2008 : Column 300
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this is, I think, a very minor point. We were talking about the pilot being undertaken by the Lancashire east division. As I understand it, the code is limited to that division; there is nothing in it to say that after April, or whenever, it will be widened out. It looks to me as if the Minister would have to come back to this House to widen it out, because there will not be approval for it to be rolled out into the wider system. The Minister might want to look at that.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I thought that that would happen after six months, but that is a good point and I will look at it to ensure that there is not some slip there. We will make sure that that is resolved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.45 pm.]
Climate Change Bill [HL]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) moved Amendment No. 182C:
(a) assessing the current and predicted impact of climate change in relation to the authorities’ functions,(b) preparing proposals and policies for adapting to climate change in the exercise of their functions, and(c) co-operating with other reporting authorities for that purpose.The noble Lord said: I will speak to a series of new government clauses. Amendment No. 183A covers similar ground to Amendments Nos. 182C to 182L in this group.
These amendments give the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers powers to issue guidance to reporting authorities, and to direct them to prepare reports on how the impact of climate change will affect their functions and how they will deal with the risks they identify. These amendments reflect the fact that climate change will affect a wide range of public services and critical infrastructure. We need to ensure that there is a mechanism to pick up on poor performance or new risks which are not being addressed. We also propose to issue guidance setting out common standards for assessing and addressing
23 Jan 2008 : Column 301
Government Amendments Nos. 182C and 182G confer powers on the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to issue statutory guidance to help reporting authorities. First, the guidance will help them understand how to assess and address the risks from climate change. It is worth explaining the term “reporting authorities” straightaway. Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment No. 182L defines “reporting authority” to mean,
or “a statutory undertaker”. The first part of that definition is very wide, and covers the whole of the public sector. “Statutory undertaker” covers the utility companies in their role providing public services. Taken together, “reporting authority” covers every critical public sector organisation, which means in excess of 25,000 bodies. We intend to consult on the guidance this autumn, around the time of publication of the new UK Climate Impacts Programme 2008 scenarios. We will be discussing with our counterparts in Wales the possibility of issuing joint guidance.
Government Amendments Nos. 182D and 182H are materially identical. Proposed new subsection (1) provides powers for the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers to,
- “an assessment of the current and predicted impact of climate change in relation to the authority’s ... functions”;
- “a statement of the authority’s proposals and policies for adapting to climate change in the exercise of those functions and the time-scales for introducing those proposals and policies”;
- “an assessment of the progress made by the authority towards implementing the proposals and policies set out in its previous reports”.
Proposed new subsections (2) and (3) explain that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers,
for example, when considering a large geographical area. This will also help to ensure that activities in one area do not disadvantage another; for example, by shifting flood problems from one location to another.
Government Amendments Nos. 182E and 182J begin by ensuring that where a reporting authority has been given directions by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers to produce a report, they are under a duty to comply with those directions—that is subsection (1). Where two or more reporting authorities are directed to prepare a joint report, the authorities must take reasonable steps to co-operate—that is subsection (2). All reporting authorities required to prepare reports, whether by
23 Jan 2008 : Column 302
Reporting authorities operating in Wales or those with devolved Welsh functions must also have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Ministers' report on climate change under Clause 56. The authority must then send the report to the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers as appropriate, who will then publish the report, subject to the usual exemptions. Finally, Amendments Nos. 182E and 182J require reporting authorities to have regard to their own report in the exercise of their relevant functions. This is important as it will help to ensure ongoing consideration of adaptation and that it is mainstreamed through embedding in the workings of an organisation.
The devolution aspects of the government amendments are mainly covered in government Amendment No. 182L, which reflects the existing devolution settlements. Powers are conferred on the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to make their own decisions in this area, which is largely devolved, whereas the National Assembly for Wales has not yet acquired legislative competence.
Having explained the Government’s position, I want to turn to Amendment No. 183A. As already noted, we agree with the overall aim of Amendment No. 183A regarding the need for risk assessments, plans and guidance and the need to disclose information and to co-operate in the light of government guidance and evidence. I thank noble Lords for all the work that has been done on this, and for the indication that we are all thinking in a similar way.
There are only three main areas of difference. First, Amendment No. 183A suggests a blanket general duty on all listed authorities. We believe that that process would impose disproportionate burdens and costs on public bodies. As previously explained, we feel that the targeted, risk-based power outlined in the government amendment would be a more appropriate approach. Secondly, the Government's approach is more in line with the relationship between central and local government in terms of local autonomy and flexibility. It would also not cut across and duplicate other performance management frameworks. Thirdly, the Government's amendments cover a broader range of organisations than those in Amendment No. 183A. That amendment proposes that a duty should apply to bodies listed in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. While this list covers the most essential bodies to civil responses in major crises, a wider range of bodies may need to be covered to address ongoing adaptation issues. I have tried to complete that as quickly and as succinctly as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for covering my own Amendment No. 183A as well. We clearly welcome the Government adding flesh to the bones of adaptation and commenting on the various public bodies and everyone else involved in a very
23 Jan 2008 : Column 303
I do not think that there is the clash that the Government and the Minister suggest. We feel very strongly that certain organisations need to have a duty laid on them. Adaptation is an increasingly vital issue, as we have seen in the United Kingdom in recent years. It is right that certain bodies should have duties and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 states very well those that should have such duties. I agree absolutely with the Minister that his amendment would cover a broader range of organisations where there need not be a duty as such but a more discretionary approach at the call of the Secretary of State.
We very much believe that this part of the Bill must be strengthened. It is serious enough that certain key bodies should have a duty even though that it still quite wide. Beyond that, we also recognise that a whole population of other organisations covered by the government amendments need to be brought into the Bill. Amendment No. 183A is a core and essential part of the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Amendment No. 183A also bears my name. I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward their adaptation and for recognising the importance of a range of bodies—both public and private—to prepare for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The summer floods, for example, showed how extreme some of the impacts increasingly will be. It would not be unfair to say that many bodies were not prepared during the summer floods for the simple impact of extreme weather that we are likely to see more of because of climate change.
There have recently been even more floods and the lesson I have got from the past 10 days is how badly prepared our road and rail systems are. They are the first to go under as soon as there is any surplus water around. That must be taken into account by the operators of railways and providers of roads. There is a job to be done right now, which will become an increasingly large one. I am pleased that the Government tabled their amendments and I am grateful to the Minister for the letter he sent with the amendments explaining the intention behind them.
I still think that there should be a duty on these very important providers of essential public services. The government amendments involve a two-part process. First, guidance will be given to all bodies described in the amendment on how to assess risks and make plans to adapt to them—a sort of exhortation process, giving guidance about what might be expected, but no requirement to comply. The Minister has already said that it includes a large range of bodies, so it is not as if you can have stout words with them one by one, explaining that it is a requirement. There will have to be something that is pretty explicit and clear.
Secondly, if they do not do the right thing, there is a provision for the Government to require the ones that are not doing very well to produce a report. The
23 Jan 2008 : Column 304
The helpful letter the Minister sent states:
“We envisage that the Secretary of State will only require public authorities or statutory undertakers to report to him in areas that are critical to the UK’s ability to adapt and where information or evidence of progress is lacking”.
Without a duty laid on them and without a requirement to report in some minimalist way, it is difficult to understand how the Minister would judge when progress was lacking across the huge range of bodies that he was talking about.
9 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |