|
Simon Hughes: Can the Minister give the Committee the list of offences that will be included that are not now included?
Hilary Benn: I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him that complete list and I will send a copy to the hon. Member for Woking.
Mr. Allen: Would my hon. Friend add as a postscript to his letter to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey the tests that the police would have to go through to use that power? It is not a general power. It is not to be used at random. There are many safeguards for the individual.
Hilary Benn: I will gladly do so, although it is readily available in section 42(1) of PACE.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that we have thought very carefully about the proposals? In relation to the judge, we felt that the amendment would not be necessary simply because police officers are perfectly capable of determining what is or is not an arrestable
Column Number: 103
offence. We should remember, as we move on from the necessary close and careful examination of the text and the detail, why we are having this discussion. In the end it is about enabling the police on our behalf to gather evidence in order to bring someone whom they suspect of committing a crime to account for that crime and at least to put the evidence before a court.
Mr. Malins: Does the Minister think it surprising that seven of his hon. Friends, given a free vote on the Select Committee, took a view quite contrary to his own? Does he think that that view is widespread among his colleagues on this Committee? If not, is it not rather a coincidence that uniquely the seven on the Select Committee, who had the freedom to express their own view, expressed it one way?
Hilary Benn: I am never surprised by my colleagues or by any hon. Members. We have had a good argument about the clause. We cannot test whether all the members of the Select Committee would be persuaded by my argument because it is a hypothesis. In the end, this is about trying to bring people to account for crimes that have been committed and in almost every case the impact of those crimes on individuals is serious. That is why we want to make the change.
Simon Hughes: The Minister is respected for his ministerial career so far. In this case he has not made the case at all. First, he has simply repeated the argument that was put to and rejected by the Selected Committee. He has repeated it without any back-up evidence. He has not addressed the fact that the proposal fundamentally changes the current limit, which is 24 hours except in serious cases, to 36 hours for all arrestable offences. Once the law is changed to refer to arrestable offence, rather than serious arrestable offence, all offences will trigger the longer period.
Secondly, the Minister has not dealt with the argument about the specific type of offence that has caused a difficulty that could be added to the list of offences that justify the 36-hour limit. He has not presented evidence from the police to show the types of case where they have had difficulties. Had the police given him evidence showing the breakdown of offences and the difficulties, and had he given it to the Committee, that would have been more persuasive.
We have heard for how few offences the current power relating to the extended period has been used. However, we have had no evidence as to what those offences were, so we do not even know where, currently, the police have felt it necessary to lock into the 36-hour option. One cannot argue for a 50 per cent. increase in the powers of the police to take away the liberty of the citizen without pretty strong evidence in support. Having rejected the unanimous view of the Select Committee despite the arguments and the evidence, one cannot come to the Committee and present no new argument or evidence for the reduction in the liberty of the citizen.
I ask the Minister and other members of the Committee to reflect on the fact that we should
Column Number: 104
never legislate on the basis of a general presumption that a power might be more convenient because in some cases it might be available. A good case is needed, backed up by good evidence to show that the measure would make a materially beneficial difference and that all the other options for changing the law are not possible.
The only argument for change would be for changing the position on certain offences such as burglary or robbery if that were a concern of the police. With no such case, the Minister cannot be confident that he can persuade us to support him. Until such an argument is advanced, the Government do not deserve the support of hon. Members this morning. [Interruption.]
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 3.
Division No. 3]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Kidney, Mr. David
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Taylor, Ms Dari
Turner, Dr. Desmond
NOES
Heath, Mr. David
Hermon, Lady
Hughes, Simon
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: Just before we leave the subject of arrestable offences, I remind hon. Members to switch off, or turn to silent mode, telephones and pagers.
John Mann: Thirty-six hours' detention.
The Chairman: Any more and it will be a hanging offence. Clause 6
Property of detained persons
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out from 'is' to end and insert 'inserted after ''recorded'', ''if requested by the person''.'.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in
clause 6, page 4, line 36, at end insert 'and inserted instead ''and shall offer the detained person an opportunity to make a written record of''.'.
No. 33, in
clause 6, page 4, line 37, at beginning insert 'In'.
No. 36, in
clause 6, page 4, line 37, at beginning insert 'After'.
No. 34, in
clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out 'is omitted' and insert 'there is inserted after the first ''record'' the words ''if made''.'.
No. 18, in
Column Number: 105
No. 74, in
Mr. Malins: This important clause is of some concern to practitioners of law in the legal profession and the police. It removes the requirement on the custody officer under PACE to
''record or cause to be recorded''
everything that a detained person has with him or her on entering custody. The custody officer must still find out what the person has with him, but any recording is entirely at the custody officer's discretion. For reasons that I shall develop, I have concerns about removing that duty from the custody officer, because it is in the interest of the police and, arguably, of defendants that the law should remain as it is. My amendments would provide that a defendant could request a record to be kept, and that if he did, it should be kept. Also, he should be offered that option on every relevant occasion. Amendment No. 18 would provide, in terms, that even if the clause was not amended in those ways, and a full written record was not required, an exception should be made in the case of cash in the possession of the defendant.
Currently, the police must make a record of everything that the defendant has with him that is of value or that may be used by him to harm himself. All such items are inevitably removed from a defendant. Interestingly, practice varies from police station to police station and county to county, and it is sometimes left to the custody officer's discretion to decide what items should be removed, and the reasons to be given. For example, a Rolex watch is an item of value and would come off and go into the custody record. A pocket knife would be taken for the reason that it could be used to harm the defendant or another.
I recently asked a very senior police officer about earrings, which a large number of young men wear. Oddly enough, the response was that at the station in question the practice was to leave them with the defendant. The conversation provoked the officer to say that, interestingly, a comb is sometimes left with a defendant and sometimes taken and recorded on a separate sheet. Not every police station takes the same approach, but the principle is that a record is kept of everything that the defendant has with him. My amendments are needed so that the provision removing the requirement to keep a record is watered down sufficiently to preserve the protection of both police and defendant.
There are obvious reasons why belts and shoelaces would be taken from a defendant. What happens to a wallet containing cards and money? You may know, Mr. Illsley, that custody suites are videoed round the clock. The police make a terribly good effort to ensure that all that they do is caught on video as well as recording it on paper. In dealing with a wallet, they would mention that there was a wallet containing £50 cash and a Visa card. Then they would note on the written record ''sundry other cards''. A Boots Advantage card is not an item of value, or one with
Column Number: 106
which one would damage oneself. They might also make a note of ''sundry other photographs''. Those are the categories: valuable items, possibly damaging items, and items sometimes generically included. A full and proper record is kept.
11 am
Is it a burden? The answer is yes and no. Until recently, I did not know that the police do not regard computerised records of items taken from a defendant as a burden. It is relatively straightforward, but not every county is computerised, and some forces still take the record by hand. Has the Minister asked chief constables whether their forces are computerised to the extent that the written records of defendants' items kept at a police station are on a computer, or still done by hand? Surrey police force became computerised for that purpose in 1993.
My experience of record keeping of items removed from a defendant and kept at a police station is gleaned from my contact with Surrey police force. I spoke to several, though not many, officers in the area who believed that the computerised records were not a burden now, but had been in the past when it was all done by hand. That is not surprising, but the police face serious burdens in making other records, to which I shall return in a moment.
Why, then, does my amendment refer to keeping a separate record of the money? The answer is plain: without a written record of the money that a defendant has on his or her person, the way is open for allegations of impropriety against the police later.
It is interesting to note the observations of the Metropolitan police force, which broadly supported the proposal
''in so far as it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy'',
but its submission also referred to
''concerns that implementing this proposal may, on occasion, leave police more open to allegations of impropriety.''
That is the view of the Metropolitan police and it is clearly in the interests of the police as well as the defendant to keep a detailed record of the money, but the clause removes the requirement to record
''everything which a detained person has with him''.
|
