ARREST ELSEWHERE THAN AT POLICE STATION (Hansard, 25 October 1984)

Mr. Shaw
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from 'constable' to 'may' in line 6 and insert 'to whom this subsection applies'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 93, Lords amendment No. 94, with amendment (a) to it, and Lords amendments Nos. 95 and 294.

Mr. Shaw
These amendments relate to custody officers and to the detention which flows therefrom.
One of the most important concepts in the Bill is that of the introduction of the custody officer. The Royal Commission recommended, in paragraph 3.112 of its report, that as soon as a suspect is brought into a police station under arrest accountable responsibility for his welfare, for seeing that he is aware of his rights, for answering inquiries about his whereabouts and for decisions about his detention pass out of the hands of the arresting or investigating officer and into the hands of another officer. Following the Royal Commission, we have called this other officer the custody officer, and clause 34 provides for the appointment of custody officers.
The responsibilities and duties of custody officers are set out in clauses 35 to 37 and in the draft codes of practice for which clause 63 provides. To a large extent, these responsibilities and duties involve a distillation of current best practice—the custody officer inheriting the mantle of the present station sergeant. However, as his title implies, his role will involve a new and necessary emphasis on the treatment of the detained persons and a new element of direct personal accountability for their welfare and the safeguarding of their rights.
In Committee, clause 34 attracted criticism from both sides. It was urged that the custody officer's role was so significant a development of that of the station sergeant, and that the range of new safeguards provided by the Bill was so extensive, that clause 34 incorporated too casual an approach. We concluded that there was force in the criticisms. The difference in reality between the busy city centre police station manned round the clock by a number of officers and the unmanned rural station which is unlocked and used for only a couple of hours a day is greater than the distinction between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 34 implies. In the light of the Committee debates, we took into account some other inherent practical 860 problems which we had originally underestimated and which the Committee did a service in exposing. We therefore proposed in another place that clause 34 should be replaced by a new clause—amendment No. 94.
The other amendments deal with the necessary changes which flow from the new scheme in the new clause. Amendment No. 93 paves the way for the change. The new clause defines the term "designated police station". It requires each chief officer to designate sufficient police stations to provide accommodation for persons who are detained in his police area. These will be fully manned stations, generally open for 24 hours, to which the great majority of arrested persons will be taken.
Amendment No. 294 is consequential to the new clause, and adds the definition of a "designated police station" to the general interpretation clause.
The first five subsections of amendment No. 94—the new clause—provide for the appointment of at least one custody officer, who must be at least of the rank of sergeant, at each designated police station. The important feature of these subsections is that custody officers are to be specifically appointed as such and that those appointed must be of at least sergeant rank, although subsection (4) permits other officers, who might sometimes be of lower rank than sergeant, to perform the functions of the custody officer if he is not readily available.
Subsection (5) retains in the case of designated stations the division of investigative and custodial responsibilities at present prescribed generally in clause 34(3).
Subsections (6) to (9) address the problem of small rural police stations. Subsection (6) defines who is to perform the functions of the custody officer if an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station. If possible, an officer who is not involved with the investigation will perform this task. It may be that in the case of a two-man station the other officer would be available to do so. However, no such officer is readily available, or if both officers had been involved in the arrest, the demarcation between custodial and investigative responsibilities may be suspended.
The institution of custody officers is a major development in the ethos of policing. It is vital that the scheme should be workable and practicable. Clause 34 as printed would cause difficulties. It would lead in a minority of cases to considerable inconvenience to the arrested person and the depletion of local police cover. The amendments made in another place will meet this problem and introduce extra safeguards to balance the increased discretion given to the police.
Finally, we propose small additional amendments to the revised detention scheme. They will not in any way affect the 43 police forces in England and Wales which are governed by the Police Act 1964, but they are necessary to enable other forces such as the British Transport police and the various ports or docks police to continue to work effectively. I trust that the House will accept the amendments.

§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)
I am particularly concerned with Lords amendment No. 94. However, I should first like to welcome the new Minister of State to our deliberations. He joins us shortly before the second anniversary of the long saga of the Bill, which has spanned two Parliaments and survived two Home Secretaries. The 861 Minister is the third Minister of State to have been involved, and the Bill may well have attracted a record number of amendments.
I have to commiserate with the Minister, who resembles an actor taking over in the last act of a play. The lines have already been written, and he is forced to go through with the part. He has undoubtedly done his homework, but he may not be as aware of some of the debates that have taken place as we are. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and myself are the only survivors of the whole saga of the Bill.

§ Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)
Oh.

§ Mr. Dubs
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: there are three survivors.
It is significant that, despite the many changes to the Bill and the long hours of debate, the question of the custody officer and his key links with the provisions for lengthy periods of detention without charge continues to cause concern. Concern remains despite the changes which the Minister has described and the many changes made to the provisions for detention without charge made here and in another place. The worry has not been allayed. We have not yet been convinced that Scotland's six-hour maximum is not much more sensible than a 96-hour maximum.
The task of the custody officer is the key issue as he is responsible for authorising detention without charge in a police station. The Bill clearly states the reasons for that. They are to secure or preserve evidence or to obtain such evidence by questioning. The custody officer has a fundamental part to play. We believe that the result of his decision may be an oppressively long period of detention without charge during which a person is subjected to questioning. We know from cases that have come to light that that sometimes results in people being induced to confess to crimes that they have not committed. We quoted some examples in Committee. Safeguards against the abuse of such powers are few and far between. We have not yet had the safeguard which the Government conceded—it is still in its experimental stage—of tape recordings of interviews in police stations. That safeguard should be in place because of the custody officer's decision. When will that safeguard be forthcoming?
7 pm
As a result of the custody officer's decision, a person is held. Although the codes provide some right of access to legal advice, there is no absolute right. Some people who are kept for a long time may not be allowed access to solicitors. That is provided for in the code. It is important that access be safeguarded when a person can be held in custody for 96 hours. The Bill does not remove the right of habeas corpus, which is basic to our liberties, but these clauses significantly reduce a person's right to apply for it. That represents an erosion of people's rights and liberties.
New clause 94 worries me because it gives the responsibility of being a custody officer to a police officer of at least sergeant rank. I read in the October issue of Police that a Metropolitan police working party has examined the Bill's procedures and the requirement to provide custody officers. The working party sent a message to Sir Kenneth Newman and, the article runs, 862 he duly applied for a considerable increase in the establishment of sergeants. The Home Office turned him down. The police are worried that the duties of custody officers will be so wide ranging and onerous that more sergeants will have to be appointed, at least in London. I find it alarming that the Metropolitan police envisage such an increase in the number of custody officers. That implies a large increase in the number of people who are detained without charge, some of them for quite a long time. New clause 94(4) provides: An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them. If the Metropolitan police working party is to be believed, that will happen quite frequently.
The Government are saying that responsibility for holding someone without charge may quite frequently rest on an officer who does not have the seniority and experience of a sergeant. I entirely accept that sergeants must have served for some years, but they are not normally regarded as being all that senior. However, an officer of less experience might have the onerous responsibility of detaining someone for a long time. That is not good enough. We challenge the fundamental principle of long hours of detention without charge and the detail of new clause 94 which provides that the responsibility might be exercised as I have described.
In spite of the anxieties that hon. Members and others have expressed, these provisions damage civil liberties and could be used oppressively. We still lack safeguards. That is a great cause for concern. We shall vote against the principle and attach our objections to voting against new clause 94.