HL Deb 09 December 1985 vol 469 cc27-38

4.11 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Denning

My Lords, may I bring your Lordships back to the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These codes are unique. They are different from such codes as the Highway Code or the industrial relations code. Those codes do not have the force of law but they are to be taken into account in any legal proceedings; whereas these codes of practice under this Act, as I read it, have the force of law because there is a special provision that if any police officer fails to comply with the provisions of the codes, he is guilty of a disciplinary offence. He can be taken before the disciplinary tribunal. He can be dismissed, made redundant, be compelled to resign, fined or cautioned, and the like. It seems to me that these codes are very important for the police force. It is almost delegated legislation; not that I object to that, but I should like your Lordships to know the force of it.

First, I should like to say a few words in support of the duty of the police—there is so much about the restraints. It is the duty of the police to protect the lawful citizens of this country, to investigate offences and to arrest and charge those who are alleged to be guilty of those offences. On the whole the police do that duty exceedingly well and I would not wish them—and nor would any of your Lordships—to be unduly restrained in the fulfilling of that duty.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is of first importance in law. We went through all its stages. Previously the law was unclear and obscure—even the common law. It did not show clearly and distinctly what a police officer could or could not do. The Act has the great benefit that it sets out the law for the future in this great and important field of police law and criminal law. However, I had my hesitations when we debated it because it seemed to me so complicated and so detailed that no one but a lawyer specialising in these matters would understand it.

Hence the importance of the codes of practice, which, may I say, have been well designed. They are clear in dealing with the many subjects concerned but, I have to say, are available for people of high intelligence. The codes are to apply to our good police officers who are honest, courageous and upright, but not bookish persons. They are not intellectuals. They are ordinary good people and the codes of practice should be so designed as to be understandable by them and applied by them.

I do not suggest that the codes of practice should be remodelled at once, but there must be courses of instruction for all the police officers, from the top to the bottom, in the operation of these codes. If opportunity permits they must also, if I may say so, be given illustrations of the way in which the codes should operate. Many of our text books in the law have a very useful device. They set out the principle and then give illustrations of how it would operate.

Therefore, I felt that I should give your Lordships three illustrations which I took to see whether I could find out from the code what the police officer should do in each case. First, let us take the case of a police officer who is on duty in a street and sees a man running down the street followed by others. Is he to stop and search him? He must first ask himself, "Do I suspect he has been guilty of theft?". He may say to himself, "Perhaps I do, but is it a reasonable suspicion or only a mere suspicion?" To find the difference between the two he must read a page-and-a-half of this book. However, the book does not help him. If a man is running down the street followed by others calling "Stop thief" I would hold that the police officer can stop and search the man at once. I would give that illustration if I were teaching on a course. But there is nothing in the codes about it.

I give a second illustration. The owner of a motor car loses it; it disappears. A little later a police officer finds it three or four miles away outside a pub. The man who had taken the car says to the police officer, "I was not stealing it. I was only taking it for a joy ride. I am not guilty of theft." Can the police officer arrest him? These codes do not give the answer. They say he can search for certain other theft offences. The police officer has to go to the Theft Act before he can find that taking away a car in that way is a case where he can arrest. He will not find it in the codes.

I take a third case. Under the new 1985 Act concerning sports ground procedure a police officer can arrest a man who is entering a football ground with a bottle or a can of intoxicating liquor. The police officer may say to himself, "That man does not have intoxicating liquor. He has only a bottle or can of lemonade. Can I arrest him?" He will not find the answer in the codes. He will have to look in the statute. Apparently, he can arrest even if it is only a bottle or can of lemonade because it might be used to cause injury. However, the police officer will not find that in the codes.

I have taken those three examples just to show your Lordships how important it is that there should be courses of instruction for the police, from top to bottom, in which experienced people can give illustrations and tell the ordinary constable on the beat what he must do in common situations like that. That is the way they ought to be taught because your Lordships must remember that in many such cases the police officer has to act at once. It must be second nature to him. He does not have time to read the codes of practice. It must be second nature to do what is right. Therefore, it is of first importance that the codes should be intelligible and understandable by the police officer, whether or not he is an intellectual.

I do not think that the codes can be improved as they are except after experience, but there should be courses of instruction with illustrations to enable the ordinary constable on the beat to know what he must do. Having made that suggestion, all I would add is that these codes are much to be welcomed. Properly carried out, they should do a great deal to restrain the police from any over-hasty action and should help them in their most important duties in our society.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

My Lords, on behalf of the Alliance I rise also warmly to welcome these codes. Six months ago on the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to say that the codes might well turn out to be the most important part of the Act from the point of view of human rights, and I suggest that in fact that is how it has turned out. If—and it is a crucial "if" —senior police officers and the judges insist on the observance of these provisions by the police—and not only the provisions themselves, but also the spirit of the notes which go with them—then the codes may well stand out as a landmark in the long journey of the criminal process in England and Wales.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said at Second Reading that the criterion by which we should judge the codes should be: do they substantially advance the cause of encouraging people to trust the police? I have no doubt that these 97 comprehensive pages, which cover, as they do most remarkably, four of the most sensitive areas where police and public meet, could do just that. As has already been pointed out, each one is readily available for consultation by members of the public in every police station in the land. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has just spoken, that I do not think any police officer, however young and inexperienced he may be, if he saw someone dashing along Piccadilly with a crowd of people behind him shouting "Stop, thief!" would be in any doubt that he had a right of arrest in those circumstances which was quite outside this code.

Through the Minister I should like to congratulate the Home Office, which drafted and redrafted these all-embracing provisions, in particular on the simple and clear language in which they are expressed. I am quite sure that the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, also deserves his due share of credit.

There has been much justified complaint about the shortcomings of the Act itself, but we have had very little public appreciation of the extent to which the rights of the individual are in fact strengthened and upheld by the contents of these four codes and none at all from the Labour Party in another place. Nor, indeed, has there been much praise for, or comment on, the format itself of a code of practice attached to an Act of Parliament, such as in my view, and with due respect to the academic referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, we see here in successful and healthy operation.

There are many parts of the codes which I should like to praise, but I shall not do so now. Of course there are some flaws, and I shall mention two in particular. First there is Annex B to Code C which in a mere 12 lines from a total of 97 pages gives the police a unilateral and unassailable power in more serious cases to delay access to legal advice for up to 36 hours. In this way it preserves the paramount reason for a series of unacceptable miscarriages of justice over recent years and the main cause of equally unacceptable delays in the completion of so many criminal trials. It is still a matter of the greatest regret that the code does not contain the essence of the reasoned amendment on the original code which was put forward from these Benches. I myself have no doubt that, in some future review of these codes, which perhaps may not be very far distant, this annex to Code C will be swept away, because the public will not for very much longer stand for fiascos such as the recent Cyprus case, where of course, if there had been legal advice available to those young accused persons, proceedings would probably never even have been started and six months of huge expense and personal trauma would have been avoided.

The second flaw is one which has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones: the codes are silent as to what sanctions may follow any breach of them. We in this House know that there may be disciplinary proceedings, there may be a complaint made through the complaints procedure and there may be a trial in which evidence may be disallowed if the fairness of the proceedings is adversely affected; but there is none of this in the code itself and no reference to any of it.

I should like to ask the Minister whether surely there should be some reference to the results of a breach in the foreword to the codes and some reference to it in the index, because people who read the codes will want to know first of all what may happen if there is in fact a breach? Of course, this is quite apart from the point, which many of us have urged over a long period, that those sanctions in themselves will surely turn out to be quite inadequate. I hope they will be looked at again when the codes come to be reviewed.

I should further like to mention that though the individual's rights are spelled out very well in these codes, it does not appear to me that in all cases the individual is made aware of those rights. If one does not know what one's rights are, there is not much point in having them put into the code. For the benefit of the noble Lord the Minister perhaps I may mention, for instance, that in Code B an occupier of premises has the right to have someone present when the premises are searched. He also has a right to have a list of the property which has been taken away as a result of the search, and he has a right to take photocopies or other copies of this property. But there does not appear to be any duty on the police to tell that person of those rights.

In Code C a person attending voluntarily at a police station may leave at any time and has an absolute right to legal advice; but again there does not seem to be any provision for telling that person that in fact he has those rights.

In Code A, which is the stop-and-search code, though the suspicion required by the police for a stop and search is precisely the same as the suspicion required to arrest someone without warrant for an offence, when arresting someone without warrant a caution has to be administered before further questioning, whereas there does not seem to be any provision for a caution under the stop-and-search part of the code.

The whole effectiveness of these provisions in the code will depend, above all, on the manner in which they are operated. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from this discussion, I wonder whether the Minister will ask him whether he would be prepared to ask the Lord Chief Justice to commend the codes to the judiciary and the magistracy and call upon them all to uphold their spirit and letter with vigour during the conduct of trials in the higher and in the lower courts. It was, was it not, the failure of the judiciary finally to uphold and to put a gloss on the Judges' Rules which eventually brought those rules into disrepute?

These codes also will depend to a high degree on the provision of an efficient duty solicitor scheme, and an efficient scheme means a properly remunerated scheme; otherwise, all we shall get is a third-rate scheme, worked by third-rate members of the legal profession. In those circumstances these codes will not be upheld in the way that they should be.

On Second Reading I also said that we must be sure that the provisions of the code do not become a playground for time-wasting lawyers, nor a bureaucratic nightmare for the police. Having regard to the 89 pages of the code, I think that that is still a strong possibility and here is an added reason why the judiciary and senior police officers should play so important a part in seeing that the codes and their spirit are observed.

In general I reiterate my warm welcome for the codes which, if properly operated, could amount to a significant step forward in the protection of individual liberties in this country.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, as in the case of all noble Lords who have spoken before me, I welcome this code of practice as a code of guidance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, expressly acknowledges cannot seek to provide an answer to every question arising. In particular I welcome the changes made in the Judges' Rules and in the identification procedures on which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made a most telling practical point, which I hope has come home to roost in the papers of my noble friend the Minister.

The code of practice sets a new adjustment to the balance between the need to fight crime and the need to maintain individual liberties. Whether it is satisfactory for this purpose to resort to codes of practice at all—which is a fundamental point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord ElwynJones—instead of resorting to legislation is part of a very important and much wider subject on which there is a Motion for ballot for a short debate. The hope is that, with luck, the point to which he was speaking may receive full and considered attention in your Lordships' House at some later stage, because it is a very important point.

But we are here to approve a statutory instrument. That must imply—and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, touched upon this—knowledge as to how these provisions affect the rights of the subject, remembering always that exclusion of evidence in the event of breach is at the end of the day only a matter of judicial discretion in criminal proceedings; that breach of that code of practice confers no legal rights in any civil proceedings; and that breach of the code of practice as such cannot be relied upon to set aside a conviction in any revisory court.

It is said at the back of the book which has the code that the code of practice provides, strengthened safeguards for the individual", and a, statement of rights of the individual". But this is not the sense in which such expressions as "safeguard" or "rights" are ordinarily understood in context with the maintenance of individual liberties, acknowledged and protected by law, for breach of provisions of the code of practice confers no legal rights.

The point touched upon again by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, brings us back to Section 67(11), which is the trigger clause. With respect to the noble Lord, it is too late in the day to go back to the trigger clause which activates this statutory instrument and change the text of the statute. Section 67(11) provides that in criminal and civil proceedings the code shall be admissible, and goes on to say in so many words that it is left to the court or tribunal to decide, first, whether the provisions are relevant to any particular question and, if so, what account shall be taken.

I shall not weary your Lordships with cases, but in civil law the judicial approach where such codes are brought into effect by statutory instrument is to consider them as an integral part of legislation which lay down no principles of law, only standards of behaviour and what is good practice. Proof of breach of relevant provisions affords no redress whatever by judicial decision save in the very rare case of judicial review where there is genuine perversity and the decision on any view is contrary to the commonly accepted standards of fairness.

This is a code of exhortation; it is a code for guidance. As I and other noble Lords have said, as such it is very much to be welcomed, but it would be wholly wrong to suppose, as the booklet appears to indicate, that there are safeguards or rights in the sense in which those terms are ordinarily understood.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I should like to make a different point, and I have given notice of this question to the Minister. I shall not detain your Lordships long as I am merely a layman and not of the legal persuasion. As your Lordships probably know, there are already operating about a quarter of a million people who act as security personnel and who carry out various duties before handing suspects over to the police or before suspects are brought before a magistrate. I notice that in the original Act Section 24 said that any person may arrest without a warrant. These security people—store detectives, and so on—operate under the citizens' arrest procedure.

My question is simple. At the moment such people act within the Judges' Rules and have been carefully briefed on them. Will the codes of practice apply to those acting under the citizens' arrest procedure, and, if so, will all the codes apply? We have not reached them all yet, but, for example, will cautioning equally apply?

This is very important. At the moment, a lot of completely confusing advice is being given. I should like to tell those of your Lordships who seem so worried about the magistrates that magistrates constantly have courses—far more, I suspect, than the higher courts. They are kept up to date with every Act of Parliament, including that which is now before your Lordships. I should also like to tell the other noble Lord who mentioned this that there is no doubt that the police are also having courses. I have sat in on a number of them. I am, however, bound to say that there is a great deal of confusion, and I should like a straightforward answer to my simple question. It may not prove to be so simple if the answer is, yes. I shall probably have to come back when we talk about the other codes of practice.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, I should not like this opportunity to pass without expressing my appreciation, as chairman of Mencap, of what is provided in the codes relating to the detention, questioning and identification of mentally handicapped persons. In expressing my welcome, I do so without any of the qualifications or reservations which previous speakers have attached to their welcome. During the long period of consultation the Home Office has been particularly forthcoming and patient in discussing and accepting suggestions put on behalf of Mencap. The Home Office, if I can speak entirely without prejudice, has again shown itself to be a rather splendid department.

As we know, there have been in the past some pretty distressing cases involving mentally handicapped persons. As the noble Lord the Minister said (a long time ago, it now seems) in introducing the debate, one or two of those have, in a measure, been responsible, in part at any rate, for the legislation that has led to these codes. I recognise that it will now be necessary to make sure that there are available appropriate adults, as the codes put it, with the necessary knowledge and experience to assist the detained persons and the police. A programme of education and training is now being planned in consultation with other relevant organisations. We shall keep in touch with the Home Office as this plan develops. But, for now, all that I wish to do is to say "Thank you" to the Government for the provisions in these codes in relation to the particularly unfortunate class of people on whose behalf I speak.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I should first like to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who was, I believe, the first to mention the immense volume of work that we were imposing on the shoulders of individual police officers in accepting this document. I am not forgetting that there will be other documents of different sorts under the 1984 Act that must be learnt by individual police officers. There is more, I am sure, to come. This booklet contains 90 or so pages that will have to be learnt. I believe that there are bound to be more than a few traps when, in the light of practice, we discover how different parts of the procedures are working. I hope that we shall be able to remain in touch with the noble Lord the Minister. I am sure that we shall want a debate in, say, a year from now, at which time I should like to hear how matters are working out.

For the benefit of those noble Lords who are perhaps not so closely in touch with training, it is necessary to recognise that we are talking not only of training young police officers. We are talking about both older and younger. However, a young police officer, when he is sworn in, is endowed with full powers in the first half-hour of his service.

I should like to reinforce what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said about training. Over the last few months I have had the chance to be in close touch with police officers in more than two forces. I have attended their training classes and I have myself tried to help. I have come to understand the heavy burden that they now carry. I hope that they will get all the help that they need; and a great responsibility will fall upon the shoulders of sergeants who will be responsible for guiding young police officers. This will be most important.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, we have had, I think, a useful debate on these codes. I am grateful to noble Lords for the many kind comments they have made about the net result of our deliberations on both the Act and on the codes, and for the encouraging remarks, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who were kind enough to say that they thought that the codes were, on the whole, balanced, and that they would be effective. I am also grateful, of course, for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, about the Home Office draftsmen and about my noble friend Lord Elton. I shall certainly pass on his kind remarks. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his comments about the mentally handicapped. As the noble Lord will know, I had responsibility in that direction myself. I was pleased when I was transferred, so to speak, to see that the needs of the mentally handicapped had been met by these provisions.

I can perhaps now try to cover some of the points that have been raised, starting with the status of the codes and of the guidance notes, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I was not here when the Bill was discussed. I was therefore spared a lengthy session. I am, however, aware that your Lordships debated long and hard the distinction between what should go into the Act and what was proper for the codes. The main safeguards for the public are contained in the Act. The codes develop that by spelling out how those safeguards and procedures are to be followed. Framing this material in a code enables that material to be kept under review and amended and developed as experience demands. That is, I believe, exactly what the noble and learned Lord was hoping.

As to the guidance notes, the provisions of the codes themselves are binding on the police and a breach will constitute a disciplinary offence. The guidance notes are intended to explain the codes' provisions, to provide examples of how different situations should be handled and to provide guidance on the correct procedure that should normally be followed. They also indicate the role likely to be played by those who are not police officers. They go into a fair amount of detail and are intended to help the police in carrying out the codes' provisions. Under normal circumstances, the police will be expected to observe the provisions of the guidance notes. But the guidance notes are intended to be flexible. There may be unusual situations where the guidance cannot be followed and where it would be right for the police to follow another course of action.

It is important to recognise the need for flexibility in this area. We cannot predict—nor can anyone—every problem that the police will face, and provide an answer for it. What we can do is lay down the principles that the police must observe and guidance on how to follow those principles. That is what we have tried to do. So far as the preservation of records is concerned—another point raised by the noble and learned Lord—I can tell him that there is no prescribed limit on the length of time for which records may be kept. But it is important that they are preserved for a reasonable period. The records will represent an invaluable means of monitoring the use made of powers and of ensuring that they are used responsibly and fairly. The use made of such records stored on computers will of course be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was concerned about search with consent. As I understand it, there may be circumstances in which it is clear that the police are likely to receive consent but where it would be more a disservice to the occupier of property for them to seek it. Guidance note 4C in Code B makes this clear. For example, if the police arrest an offender after a pursuit and he has taken refuge in the garden of a private house, it would be reasonable for the police to want to make a quick search of the garden to check that the offender has not discarded or hidden anything of interest to them. However, if it takes place in the middle of the night and the householder has not been woken, it is no kindness to him to require the police to wake him to secure his agreement to the search of the garden.

As regards the suggestion of the need for a shortened leaflet and the reference to the assurances given in another place, I can say that a leaflet has been devised setting out the specific rights available to suspects as indicated at col. 519 of the Official Report of another place for 5th December. I have a copy of the particular form which I can certainly let the noble and learned Lord have in due course.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, were concerned about sanctions, remedies. The provisions of the codes of practice are binding on all police officers. They are required to observe them and failure to do so may constitute a disciplinary offence. The penalty for a disciplinary offence may be as serious as dismissal from the service or a reduction in rank, as, I believe, some of your Lordships made clear just now. If a person believes that the police have behaved improperly by breaching the provisions of the codes, it is open to him to make a formal complaint against the police. As your Lordships will be aware, we have recently seen a major reform of the police complaints system with the implementation of Part IX of the Act on 29th April and with the creation of an enlarged independent element in the form of the new Police Complaints Authority.

However, if an abuse of the codes occurs, it may also become a matter for consideration by the courts. Section 67 of the Act specifically declares the provisions of the codes admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. If a provision or its contravention appears to the court to be relevant to any proceedings, then the court is required to take it into account. If the code has been breached during an investigation in a way that reflects upon the reliability of the evidence which has been obtained, then the court is obliged to consider that fact.

As regards the consequences of a breach being made known on the face of the codes of practice, I point out that the consequences of a breach are set out in Section 67(8) of the parent Act which clearly establishes that it may lead to disciplinary proceedings. The position is also repeated in the police discipline regulations which your Lordships considered in April this year. I have no doubt that police officers will be fully aware of those provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the potential difficulties with identification parades. The code of practice on identification, together with the forms to be circulated to forces for use in connection with identification procedures, emphasises the need to ensure that witnesses are not exposed to undue influence by each other and by the police. That is a major purpose of the exercise. However, we shall of course keep that aspect of the scheme under review. The noble Lord pointed to ways in which he thought matters could go wrong. If it appears to us that a further tightening up is needed, we shall not hesitate to take the necessary steps.

So far as the training of those who have to implement the codes are concerned, primarily the police—and this point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Inglewood—I point out that the code sets out the principles and guides the police on their application. Few examples of what is in mind are included. However, the general approach has been to rely on the courses which the police have already been running and which have been successful so far as we can tell.

The Home Office Central Planning Unit, for example, has produced training material including detailed video films to teach officers how to apply the codes. A similar approach has been adopted by the metropolitan police. By the implementation of the Act on 1st January, every police officer in the country will have undergone extensive training. The norm is three days' training for most officers with an extra day for those who have special duties under the provisions—for example, sergeants. I certainly take the point made that the provisions are complex and that the officers will require careful training, but the training which has been carried out so far has been successful.

Turning to the point about delay of access to legal advice which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I point out that the code does no more than reflect the decision of Parliament on when legal advice may be delayed. I understand that it would not have been appropriate for the code to have sought to go back on what Parliament decided because, of course, the Act is, as it were, the parent of the whole issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, kindly gave me notice of a particular matter which she wished to raise in connection with Section 24. Section 24 provides powers of arrest for any person in the case of arrestable offences. I am referring, of course, to the citizen's power of arrest which is exercised by people who are not police officers when they arrest an offender. As the noble Baroness indicated, such a power is exercised, for example, by store detectives, or by security officers when they arrest people whom they catch stealing from a shop or a factory.

In such a case it is the duty of a citizen to hand over the arrested person to the police as soon as practicable. It may be reasonable in the circumstances for the arrested person to be briefly questioned by the store detective or manager. In such cases perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Section 67(9) of the Act, which provides that persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences shall have regard to any relevant provision of the code of practice. That of course reflects the present position which regard to the Judges' Rules. Store detectives or security officers are not charged under any law with the duty of investigating offences, but it is right and proper for such people to observe any provisions of the codes which might be relevant to them. For example, if they seek briefly to question a suspect, it would be appropriate for them to caution him first bearing in mind that the detective's conduct could be questioned in court proceedings. I hope that those comments will give the noble Baroness the reassurance which she seeks.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway drew attention to the back of the pamphlet and talked about the question of rights and safeguards. I hope that I understood my noble friend correctly, but as I understand it there is no right in the subject in the sense of an avenue for civil redress. However, the subject can employ the complaints procedure where he believes that the rules have been broken. That can lead to action under the discipline code. It is open to a court to decide whether the breach of a provision is serious enough to lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the breach. I shall certainly study my noble friend's remarks, but I hope that those comments give him at least some reassurance.

In conclusion, let me say that the Act and the codes of practice represent a major step forward in police public relations. The important point about the package is not whether it adds to or subtracts from police powers in this area or that area, although that has been the subject of many hours of debate in your Lordships' House; the essential point is that we have a real chance of breaking through the innuendo and suspicion which has so often bedevilled the treatment of suspects by the police. The whole area is a fruitful field for the types of fears and allegations which have dogged policing for such a long time especially in sensitive areas—for example areas concerning young people, ethnic minorities and so on—where most damage can be done.

These provisions, by bringing out into the open what has actually gone on in the police station and providing a clear means of checking afterwards what has happened, provide the opportunity of breaking through that web of suspicion. They will provide the opportunity for more effective internal management and supervision to ensure that the best practices flourish and the less good are brought to an end.

This is the chance of an important initiative for the police which I believe the police service recognises. It is up to us all to support them in this new venture, not uncritically but with understanding, which I am sure is what they will receive. I believe that it will usher in an important new era in an essential area of our national life, and on those grounds I commend the order to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.