Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and must declare an interest because I have a half-sister and a step-sister both of whom are profoundly deaf. My half-sister relies totally on British sign language to communicate.
Will the Minister acknowledge that British sign language is a visual and spatial language and the only way to record the source of an interview is by video? That then records the visual aspect of sign language which audio recording will not do. Will the Minister also acknowledge that it is the responsibility of the Home Office to ensure that police forces throughout the country have minimum standards so that they do not disadvantage deaf people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's keen interest in and knowledge of these matters. It is correct that the sign language to which the noble Lord referred is a distinct language, but it is based on the English language. The written record is provided for the suspect to take away. It is useful for a solicitor and for a friend or colleague to have a permanent record in that form.
It is open to chief officers of police to video record interviews, but not every police station has those facilities, which are expensive. If one insisted on video recording, one would then have delays which would be unfair and unfortunate. I acknowledge the responsibility of the Home Office and am pleased to be able to say that we are holding seminars in five centres between 22nd and 31st March of this year to talk through with
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot. I shall research the material, write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library of the House. In my experience, outlying small police stations are unlikely to have expensive sophisticated video equipment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if a mistake is made by the interpreter, a written record of the interview would not pick up that mistake? However, a video recording of the signing by the deaf person would show what had actually been said by the deaf person and not the mistake that appeared on the written record.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is some virtue in what the noble Lord says. It is a case of practicalities and numbers. That is the reason these seminars are to be held, taking forward research materials that have been provided in at least two documents dealing with this difficult area. However, I stress that the codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) provide written safeguards for those who might otherwise be disadvantaged by not being of perfect hearing during an interview.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply with regard to the police stations that may not have the facilities for video recording. However, can the Minister say to what extent interviewing procedures covering sign language are required in police stations?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the code requires in a number of different contexts that specific safeguards shall be in place for the interviews to which my noble friend refers. For instance, it is not proper to conduct an interview without an interpreter; the interview must be recorded; a copy must be provided; and there must also be audio recording. All those requirements are in the regulations under PACE and in the codes. If there is any unfairness to a defendant, the judge has the overriding discretion under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to exclude the evidence entirely.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is it not difficult for the Minister to reconcile his advocacy of the laws about the courts admitting video evidence in cross-examination, while leaving the responsibility entirely up to the police to implement individual suggestions such as those of my noble friend Lord Annaly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no contradiction at all. The police have the responsibility for conducting interviews under the PACE codes. It is rightly upon them. Thereafter the judge has an overriding discretion to exclude unfair material. It is
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been, as a matter of fact, any substantial complaint of unfairness in this context which has reached the police or the Home Office?
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the current flow of hedgerow regulations needs to be considered urgently and that the significant report of the Commons Select Committee on field boundaries merits serious consideration? Will my noble friend also look at the implications of the Flamborough judgment which leads to the conclusion that many of the hedgerows in the 4,000 pre-1840 Inclosure Acts enjoy perpetual protection? Should not farmers be urged not to take down such hedgerows? Where public money has been granted to support their removal over the past 30 years, will steps be taken either to restore the hedgerows or get back the money?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, getting money back from farmers is a task that I would prefer to leave to others. On hedgerows, I agree wholly with the drift of my noble friend's Question. Immediately on coming into office, the Government announced that they would revise the 1997 regulations on hedgerows which, I think, was the last Act of the previous administration. The Government have responded to the Select Committee in a very positive way. A group is considering what our specific recommendations will be. It is currently pursuing research--it is quite a complex area--on defining what is an important hedgerow according to various criteria. When that research has been completed, we shall come forward with our proposals. I
On the Flamborough judgment, which my noble friend spoke about, and the Inclosure Acts, there will be a recommendation in our statement that landowners bear in mind their obligations under the Inclosure Acts. However, it is our view that the Inclosure Acts are a rather inadequate support for the protection of hedgerows; for instance, there has to be an interested boundary partner who takes action. We would rather revise the regulations and make them operate in an effective way on a contemporary basis.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when do the Government expect that research to be concluded? At the moment, there is some considerable urgency about it. There is a decline in the bird population in the countryside, a decline, largely through neglect in some cases, of field boundaries and the need to help farmers who cannot at the moment afford to do practically anything, let alone what is needed. When is that research expected to reach a conclusion?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is currently well advanced. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and not MAFF. We are hopeful that by the spring the results will be made available and we shall publish them.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page