HL Deb 13 December 1990 vol 524 cc624-38

6.24 p.m.

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in accordance with Section 67(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, may from time to time revise any codes of practice which are issued under that Act.

The existing first four codes of practice regulate in detail the exercise by the police of their powers of stop and search; the search of premises and the seizure of property; the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects; and the identification of persons by the police. They came into force on 1st January 1986. They were then a major innovation. No one had previously tried to draw up such comprehensive codes and they have proved a resounding success. I think that it is fair to say that the police now welcome them as giving them firm and clear parameters within which to operate.

When Parliament first introduced the codes, it promised that there should be a review after they had been in practice for sufficient time to see where improvements are needed. The review process has been a complex one and has involved a double round of consultation with professionals and the public. The review has been in progress for nearly three years and we have received comments and proposals from a very wide range of groups and organisations, including those representing the police, the legal profession, civil liberties interests, and community groups. We have paid close attention to what they have said and we have taken their views into account wherever possible when preparing the final draft which is now before your Lordships.

We have tried, as far as possible, to reconcile the different views which inevitably have been expressed. We have also tried to ensure that the codes of practice represent a reasonable balance which gives the police the powers which they need to deal with crime, but which also provides workable and effective safeguards for the citizen who comes into contact with the police.

I should like to say something about each code in turn in order to highlight the main changes which are being proposed.

Regarding Code A, which deals with police powers to stop and search in the streets, the review showed that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the guidance on the "reasonable suspicion" which is needed before the power to stop and search may be exercised. We have attempted to shorten and to simplify the guidance so as to make it easier to understand and to apply, while retaining the safeguards against stopping people on the basis of racial and stereotyped images.

As regards Code B, covering the searching of premises and the seizure of evidence, the responses which we received suggest that it has been operating well. However, there is a general recognition within the police service that everything possible should be done to advise an occupier, whose premises are being searched, of his rights.

With that in mind, the revised code contains one important new provision, at paragraph 5.7, requiring the police to give the occupier of the premises to be searched a notice of powers and rights. It will explain whether the search is carried out under a warrant or in the exercise of statutory powers, and it will set out the rights of the occupier in relation to the search. The notice does not replace the search warrant where one is required.

Code C, covering the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers, has received easily the greatest amount of attention during the review. Major changes are proposed relating to access to legal advice and to the recording and verification of what is said in interviews and elsewhere.

Research which was carried out by the Home Office in 1987 found that, despite the virtually unrestricted access to legal advice under the Act, only around 20 per cent. of suspects requested legal advice. The reasons for that low uptake have been the subject of further research, which was published at the end of last year. Well over 5,000 cases were considered. The findings made it clear that most officers try to ensure that suspects get legal advice when they want it. However, it also appeared that other officers did not always act promptly in response to requests for legal advice, and that some of them might even have discouraged suspects from making such requests.

The study makes the point that advice tends to be sought in more serious cases. However, suspects in minor cases may also need help especially those who have been in little or no trouble before; who have no experience of police stations or investigative techniques; who are completely ignorant of their rights; and juveniles who may be most easily put off because of their anxiety to get out of custody as quickly as possible.

We were very concerned about those difficulties with access to legal advice, and all parties to our discussions—most notably the police themselves—have shown a very constructive approach to seeking ways to improve the position.

The draft revised Code C, which is before your Lordships, contains the following important changes. The emphasis is that the custody officer should inform a detained person clearly of his basic rights and should advise him that they are continuing rights which may be exercised at any time while he remains in custody. The code requires the custody officer to state that the right is to free legal advice. It places greater emphasis on the need to provide information in translation to non-English speakers. It requires posters advertising the right to free legal advice to be displayed in all charging areas. It requires that suspects should be reminded of their right to legal advice before any and every interview, any detention review, any identity parade or the provision of any intimate sample. It specifically states that no attempt should be made to dissuade a suspect from obtaining legal advice. Very importantly, it formally restricts the circumstances in which interviewing can take place away from the police station.

There are also significant changes which strengthen the existing provisions covering the recording and verification of interviews and other comments which may be made by suspects.

Under the revised code, in circumstances in which the interview is not tape recorded, the suspect will normally have an opportunity to read the record and sign it as correct, or to indicate the respects in which he considers it to be inaccurate. Also—and very importantly—a similar system will apply to comments which may be made outside an interview but which may be relevant to an offence. Those improved provisions for proper recording and verification should raise the quality of evidence and make it more comprehensive. Again, it is an insurance for both the suspect and the police officers.

There are other significant changes to Code C which are proposed in addition to the major amendments to which I already referred. At paragraph 3.2 we have introduced a requirement for detainees to be provided with a notice of entitlement. That is intended to detail the facilities which should be available to a detained person and which are over and above the statutory rights to which he is entitled and which are set out in the main notice to detained persons. The notice of entitlement will be easy to read and cover such things as visits, contacts with outside parties, standards of physical comfort, adequate food and drink, access to toilets and washing facilities, clothing, medical attention and exercise.

We have also sought in Code C to improve the provisions relating to the disadvantaged—those who are mentally disordered, have hearing or speech impairments or who are visually handicapped.

In Code D we have reorganised the material into a more logical order but the major change has been to introduce a whole new block of material which makes provision for identifying suspects from a video film as opposed to the more traditional method of an identification parade. That is another means by which nervous witnesses can be spared the ordeal of coming face to face with the suspects.

If approved, the revised codes will come into force on 1st April 1991. Officers will receive training in advance of that date on the basis of a programme which is being devised centrally to cover the proposed changes. Further information and designs for the new forms which will be required will be included in a Home Office circular to the police which will be issued in the new year.

The implementation and increasing approval of the codes of practice have been one of the most encouraging developments within the criminal justice system in recent years. There has been no need for wholesale amendment. Certain key areas have had to be strengthened or tightened but the success of the body of the codes is a considerable tribute to all those who participated in the original drafting.

Properly applied, and allowing for the amendments which are being proposed, the codes will continue to make a substantial contribution to effective policing by consent, which is such a vital element in the successful relationship between the police and the public whom they serve. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Richard

My Lords, perhaps at the outset I may say that I echo the words of the noble Earl at the end of his speech. These amendments are important and the codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are crucial in terms of the relationship between the police and the general public. We welcome the improvements to the codes of conduct so far as they go.

I should like to put one or two detailed questions to the Minister, mainly in respect of Code C. I also want to raise with him two points on interpreters: one point in relation to deaf people and the other in relation to people who do not speak English.

First, when one looks at the amendments and the earlier draft codes, some of the differences between the two do not seem to improve the position of the suspect. On the contrary, they make his position somewhat more difficult. To take one difference that has certainly struck me, under the earlier draft code the superintendent's written authorisation was required before interviews could proceed with two groups of suspects: those who had indicated that they did not want legal advice, and those whose chosen solicitor was unable or unwilling to attend and who did not want or could not obtain the services of a duty solicitor. Under the old code, such suspects also had to confirm in writing or on tape that they agreed to be interviewed without taking legal advice.

Now no authorisation is needed for interviews with those who declined legal advice in the first place. Neither would it be necessary to have their agreement to be interviewed without seeing a solicitor. Authorisation is needed for interviews with suspects who are unable to reach their solicitors; and for those who change their mind about taking legal advice the suspect's agreement must also be obtained. But it will no longer be necessary to obtain authority from the superintendent. Inspectors can now give the go-ahead which only needs to be given orally.

I must tell the Minister that those changes worry me on several grounds. First, it is known that some suspects choose not to consult a solicitor because they consider that it is neither useful nor important to do so. The need for a superintendent's authority helped to emphasise the seriousness of being interviewed without legal advice, as did the requirement that the suspect's agreement to the interview be recorded. It also gave suspects another chance to consider their decision not to obtain legal advice.

Allowing inspectors rather than solicitors to authorise interviews where there has been no legal advice is somewhat worrying. I understand that the Home Office justifies the change on the grounds that an officer at inspector level is better placed than a superintendent to satisfy himself both of a suspect's wishes and whether the custody officer has followed those wishes in trying to obtain a solicitor when asked for one. The Minister may well know that the Law Society at least is not convinced by those arguments. Mr. Stephen Ridley of the Law Society is quoted as saying: The detached, reasoned judgment of a senior officer is needed. It is an important decision and should not be taken lightly. Most stations have access to a superintendent". Why should the requirement not remain at superintendent rather than inspector level?

There are some other potentially significant changes in the new codes. I do not understand one of them at all. Under the new codes suspects who undergo intimate searches, as the noble Earl said, will not be reminded of their right to free legal advice. In virtually all other circumstances, including the taking of intimate samples, the reminder is to be given. For the life of me I do not understand the logical distinction between reminding somebody of his right to free legal advice when taking an intimate sample from him and not doing so when conducting an intimate search. I should like to know its justification.

Secondly, the right to notify other people in writing or by telephone of an arrest can now be delayed for a much larger number of suspects than is the case under the old codes. Under the present codes that key right can be delayed only by a superintendent and only for those suspected of terrorist or serious arrestable offences. The revised codes provide that on an inspector's authority it can also be delayed for those detained for arrestable offences. I again do not see the justification for the change. I welcome the Minister's views on it.

Thirdly—it is a matter of detail but an important one—in the earlier drafts those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 could not be questioned about an alleged offence or asked to make a statement. That directive seems to have been dropped despite the fact that the rights of mentally ill people have perhaps been strengthened by some of the other provisions in the code. These are points of detail. Nevertheless, they are important and significant. I welcome the Minister's views on them.

Perhaps I may raise two other matters regarding interpretation. First, how will a deaf person be dealt with? Secondly, how will a person who does not speak the English language be dealt with?

As I am sure the Minister knows, the British Deaf Association is one of the organisations which participated in the consultative processes beginning in 1982 which led to the Act and the codes of practice. It is anxious about three major matters. First, is a police officer the person who should be called upon to act as an interpreter when a police officer is interviewing a suspect who happens to be deaf? I believe that at the moment he would not be entitled to do so. Under the new codes, as I understand it, he would.

The British Deaf Association takes the view that the codes rightly imply an expectation of objectivity and separation of roles. It is therefore an unacceptable contradiction not to apply the same expectation to the police in relation to the role of interpreter as the codes apply to the police in precluding them from acting as the appropriate adult.

Secondly, who calls an interpreter in relation to a deaf person? At the moment an interpreter for a deaf person would be called by a custody officer. In deciding not to call an interpreter that officer might innocently but erroneously assume that an interpreter was not needed. I believe that there should be provision for an interpreter to be provided for a deaf suspect in circumstances in which there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is deaf and may not be able to understand what is going on.

Thirdly, when should someone who is deaf waive the right to an interpreter? Again, the codes are silent on that. It is a danger—I do not for a moment say that many people will fall into that category—that I hope the Government will take into account.

The other point on interpretation arises in detail on Guidance Note 3D, which is referred to in paragraph 13.1 of Code C. It relates to the provision of an interpreter for someone who does not speak English. The guidance note states that the local community relations council may be able to provide information about interpreters with the necessary skills and experience in cases where the person concerned does not understand English. That seems to me to be a nonsense. The community relations council is not qualified to provide the interpreter. I remind the Government of what the Court of Appeal said recently in the case of Kavizinski. It emphasised, as perhaps has been rarely emphasised with such force and clarity, the necessity for a person who finds himself or herself involved in the criminal justice system to understand what is going on.

I am sure that the Government know that in Cambridge, under the auspices of the Institute of Linguists and supported by the Nuffield Foundation, a model has been developed to meet the need when public services, in particular the police, have to deal with someone who does not speak English adequately. The Cambridgeshire constabulary has worked closely with the Institute of Linguists over the years in that regard. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail. I merely point out to the Government that those who are more expert than I am in this field—and I suspect more expert than most—take the view that the practice direction—Guidance Note 3D—is inadequate, does not make sense and could land police forces in a great deal of trouble if they operated in the way suggested.

The difficulty about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of conduct is the relationship between breaches of a code and the admissibility of evidence. The Government know that the decision on admissibility under Section 78 of the Act is very much left to the discretion of the trial judge. Therefore in some cases—it has happened very frequently to those of us who practise in criminal courts—one may have a series of breaches of the code and one may then have an argument that, despite the breaches of the code, the evidence obtained by interview which should not have taken place in that way, or an identification which was not in accordance with the code, should be admissible in evidence.

I do not say that every breach of a code should result in the inadmissibility of the evidence which was obtained as a result. However, one now has the stage when prosecuting counsel quite often will concede the breach and rely on the judge's discretion in order to get the evidence in. I do not suggest that the Government amend Section 78 of the PACE Act. However, the House might welcome some indication from the Government as to whether or not they consider that the balance between breaches of the code and the admissibility of the evidence is being preserved in the way that the PACE Act intended.

Are the Government satisfied that police officers and police authorities—I pick my words very carefully indeed - are as righteous in their application of the codes of conduct under the PACE Act as they would be if they knew that the retribution of a decision of inadmissibility of evidence obtained under the breach of code would result in more evidence being excluded than was included? In other words, are the Government satisfied that Section 78 of the PACE Act in its relationship to breaches of the code is working properly? I refer to the old or the new codes.

Apart from those points, we on this side of the House welcome the attempts by the Government with the new codes of practice to deal with some of the preoccupations that were being expressed in a quite lively way in some instances in relation to the old codes.

6.48 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for the first time since he assumed responsibilities for the Home Office for the Opposition. I say that for two reasons. First, he has a substantial reputation at the criminal Bar. Secondly, I can testify to his qualities as an advocate since on one occasion I had the good fortune to be represented by him in court over a slight problem in relation to the Road Traffic Act. I am glad to say that we both emerged from the court with our reputations unimpaired.

I wish to repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard; namely, that I believe the order is wholly desirable. It certainly carries our support. However, bearing in mind the debates that we have had, not only at the time of the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but subsequent to it, such an order also indicates the desirability of having serious inquiry before proceeding to legislation.

One can compare the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with other legislation over the past few years. That Act has worked rather well. It was said by some at the time—rather foolishly, in my view—that the Act should be repealed. That proposition has now been dropped. By and large it is accepted by all that a major improvement has been carried through as a result of the passage of this legislation.

The legislation has worked because it was preceded by a widely-based Royal Commission consisting of lawyers, serving and retired police officers and people from outside the criminal justice system. The legislation was determined as a result of careful inquiry. It was vigorously debated in Parliament and is now on the statute book. It has by and large received substantial public acceptance. One can compare it with other legislation in respect of which no such inquiry took place and as a consequence serious damage was caused.

The questions that I wish to raise are different from those put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, I wish to deal with the issue of tape recordings made at police stations. In my view they have been introduced far too slowly. Can the Minister indicate whether the process has been completed? Are there now tape recording facilities in all police stations? If not, when will there be tape recording facilities in every police station in England and Wales? It is deplorable that it has taken so long to introduce this facility and I would like the Minister's reassurance that the process has, or will soon, come to a conclusion.

I now turn to the issue of video recordings. The Minister may be aware that at present two experiments are taking place; one in the West Midlands and the other, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, at Edmonton. I would like to know the Government's attitude. Do the Government now consider it desirable to extend such provision to police stations in other parts of the country? It is an important question. When one talks to American criminal lawyers and to the heads of American police forces one notes the extent to which the American criminal justice system now relies on video recordings. It is made clear by lawyers who generally represent criminal defendants and those involved in prosecution policy that the interests of the accused and the prosecution are served by this system. What is the position of the Home Office? Is it prepared to contemplate a wider introduction of the scheme?

The issue of the mentally ill is raised in Annexe E. The noble Earl will recall that we have debated the subject on a number of occasions. I am sure that he is aware that many more mentally ill people are coming into police custody. The reason is the failure of the Government's mental health programme. We are all aware that thousands of people now leave mental hospitals without adequate resources having been made available in the community to look after them. As a result police officers in any major city will speak of the substantial number of people who come into their custody and who have a background of mental illness.

That being so I wish to ask the Minister two particular questions. The first issue is dealt with in the order. There it is made clear that if a person in custody appears to be suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap there is an obligation on the police to try to obtain the attendance of a relative or a guardian. Alternatively, if the police cannot find a relative—and often that is impossible—someone with experience of dealing with mentally disordered people can be asked to go to the police station to assist. Indeed, that is a requirement. However, a third category is also dealt with in the order, and it is about that that I would like to question the noble Earl. The order states that a "responsible adult" can be asked to go to the police station to assist the person who has been taken into custody. The obligations on that responsible adult are substantial. Paragraph 9 of the code provides that where the appropriate adult is present at an interview he should be informed that he is not expected to act simply as an observer; and that the purposes of his presence are, first, to advise the person being interviewed and to observe whether or not the interview is being conducted properly and fairly, and, secondly, to facilitate communication with the person being interviewed.

Is any guidance being given to the police on what constitutes a responsible adult? Given the fact that substantial obligations are being put upon that responsible adult, has there been any discussion between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers as to the type of person who constitutes a responsible adult? The issues raised can be highly sensitive. I should be grateful for any indication that the noble Earl can give.

The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the question of what happens when the mentally ill person is a Home Office remand prisoner. During the past year or two the numbers have fluctuated between the high hundreds and up to 2,000. The Minister will recall from our previous debates on the subject that a number of mentally ill people have been held in police stations many hundreds of miles away from where they were arrested. What is the obligation on the custody sergeant in a police station? Does he have any obligations? If he believes that the person concerned may be disturbed, is he required to obtain someone with experience in dealing with the mentally ill? Does he have an obligation to call a doctor to the police station? The issue may lie outside the order; nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Earl could outline the obligations on the officer in charge of the police station when he believes that the person brought into his custody has substantial mental health problems.

Subject to the questions that I have asked, we on these Benches are content with the order.

7 p.m.

Lord Knights

My Lords, one of the consequences of the production in 1985 of the four codes of practice that we are now discussing was the phasing out of the judges' rules. That was a set of legal principles which for some 73 years covered the police interrogation of persons suspected of crime and the taking of statements from them. It is interesting to note that they appear to have been initiated originally by the police. With the rules' attendant administrative directions they ran to some five and a half pages and individual police officers were expected to know them almost by heart.

Therefore, your Lordships may not find it surprising to note that when the new codes of practice appeared, admittedly covering a wider field, the police viewed their 92 pages of mixed statutory provisions, practice directions and ethical advice with some degree of caution and a large measure of apprehension. In particular they were worried about the resource implications involved in mounting a programme to train some 120,000 individual police officers in the new procedures, a requirement which must now be repeated, as the noble Earl rightly indicated.

They were anxious about the manpower implications of creating posts of custody officer, generally of the rank of sergeant, at the majority of police stations. They were anxious about the implications of the new proposals to have interviews tape recorded and that the slightest breach of those detailed and often complicated rules might lead to an officer being liable to disciplinary proceedings and possible dismissal from the force.

I believe that the police responded very well to those challenges. Indeed, it may be thought that the comparatively few changes of any real substance made in the revised codes are some measure of that. Certainly my information is that the police have come to terms with the new situation and that the expected problems have now been largely, if not entirely, resolved.

I believe that there has been real progress in the past five years. The questioning of suspects is now conducted in ways which are quite different from those which existed before the introduction of the codes. Independent research studies clearly show that that is so.

It is a great pity that the public's perception of the situation is so clouded by the reports of, for example, the Guildford case of some 16 years ago. I do not believe that the problems which have arisen in that case could be repeated today. The future introduction of video interviewing as an extension of tape recording, which is now being introduced, will make that even more impossible.

As to the changes which the Minister outlined to us, I believe that the new and extended provisions should be generally acceptable not only to the police but also to all other parties involved. The amendments made in respect of the mentally disordered, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, are extremely important. I share his view that we shall find many more of those unfortunate people in police stations in future if only as a result of their being taken there as a place of safety under the provisions of the Mental Health Act.

Welcome, too, are the amendments relating to entitlement to legal advice. Apart from strengthening the right of suspects to such assistance, the changes are also helpful to the police by defining more clearly their relationship with defence solicitors and the latter's proper role.

The new provisions—namely, that arrested persons may only be interviewed in the controlled situation of a police station and which outlaw what have been come to be known as car seat confessions—may seem unduly restrictive to some. But that is balanced by the equally new provision that unsolicited comments made elsewhere may rightly be recorded and admitted in evidence.

That is not to say that there are not still some areas of difficulty; for example, the requirement that senior officers must give written consent to certain actions, such as the searching of premises occupied or controlled by a person arrested for an arrestable offence. In my view, that pays insufficient regard to the immediate availability of such officers, particularly in some more rural areas of the country.

It may be felt also that the provision that a person's consent to a search of premises may be withdrawn before it is concluded—probably just before the stolen goods are discovered—may well cause problems.

In his speech the noble Earl drew attention to the administrative burdens which the codes have imposed particularly on custody officers. It should be clearly recognised that in busy stations difficulty is already experienced in keeping up to date the detailed records currently required in respect of the handling and interviewing of prisoners. I am afraid that the amendments will only add to those difficulties.

The amendments also do nothing to resolve the doubts which the police have as to the interview techniques which officers may use without being accused later of being unfair or oppressive. While the code clearly indicates that a person's declaration that he is unwilling to reply to questions does not affect an officer's right to continue to ask them, there is some evidence that what has been described as "persuasive questioning" as opposed to what may be called "information seeking" is felt to be out of order. Consequently, interrogators are becoming unskilled and new recruits to the CID are not learning those techniques which, rightly or wrongly, are thought to be suspect. I hope that the Minister may be able to help us later on that point.

I have never believed that acceptable standards of conduct, such as fairness to suspects, can be achieved simply by demanding them and providing for penalties when they are not realised, whether that be through a disciplinary code or refusal to admit evidence. Proper ethical standards of policing cannot be achieved and recognised as such unless they are clearly part of every officer's way of life. I believe that the police service also recognises that, as is evidenced by the statement of common purpose and values recently produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and to which I know the other police representative bodies also subscribe.

In furtherance of that, with the help of academic advisers, members of the legal profession and others, as your Lordships may have seen in the press today, the police are actively seeking to improve and standardise the training given to police officers in the interviewing of suspects and others and to build into that the development of proper moral values. That will be successful only if a similar approach permeates all other police training. Corporate philosophies such as ACPO's statement of common purpose are of little use unless translated into individual practice which is not easy to achieve. However, the will to do that is there, and it is in the interests of the police, quite as much in the interests of justice and the public, that they should succeed in doing so.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken and for the welcome which they have given to these codes. I was particularly grateful for the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He brings to these debates the experience and wisdom of those who have been involved and are involved in the police service. His concluding remarks were right. He said that justice cannot be achieved for suspects merely by altering the wording or demanding that they should have justice. It must be part of a way of life. However, we must try to provide the codes so that when inculcated into the life of a police officer, he will be able to conduct himself correctly and in such a way that is fair and right for the suspect. I am the first to recognise that that is not an easy job, and that that requires training. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that will be time consuming. It is time consuming. People then ask why there are not more policemen on the streets.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not say that at all. I welcome training, and indeed I believe it to be essential.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord said that police officers had been trained on the first set of codes, and would now have to be retrained. If I am wrong, then I apologise. Police officers will have to be retrained, and that takes up rather a lot of time. I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who said it. I apologise to the noble Lord. I should not have put such fearful thoughts into the mind of the noble Lord, but had he heard the noble Lord, Lord Knights, first, he would have quite agreed with him. It is true to say that 120,000 officers had to be trained and that they may have to be retrained. That is important if justice is to be correctly applied to suspects.

Your Lordships asked a number of questions. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in saying how delighted we on this side of the House are to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, taking on responsibility for Home Office matters. I say that we are delighted in a personal capacity. We are delighted because he has the advantage of being trained in the law. Therefore, he will start off with a singular advantage over me, which I find a disturbing thought. Other than that fact, I welcome him enormously.

The noble Lord was concerned about the authority of superintendents. Their responsibility is now that of inspectors. Superintendents are not available at police stations at all times and inspectors are usually in operational control of police stations. They are the best people to give authority quickly. It would not be practical for a superintendent's authority to be required in every case. One must remember that an inspector is a senior police officer who is in day-to-day charge of a police station. If we can trust him to run a station properly I hope that we can trust him correctly to exercise discretion over such matters.

The noble Lord was concerned that people were not notified of their legal rights in relation to intimate searches but that they were when samples were taken. I agree that superficially that is a curious position, but there are often urgent and immediate requirements for intimate searches. It is not always possible to obtain legal advice at that stage. There is usually a delay before intimate samples are taken and therefore there is an opportunity to remind people about obtaining legal advice.

The noble Lord referred to police officers being interpreters for the deaf. I do not think that police officers could not be objective interpreters. Some deaf people can communicate quite well in writing and can lip read. It might unnecessarily extend their time in custody if an interpreter was always required to be present. Clearly, there will be occasions when interpreters will be required but it is not unreasonable to think that police officers could be impartial interpreters.

Concern was expressed also about the delay in notification for arrestable offences as well as for offences of terrorism. Some offences short of terrorism—for example, armed robbery—are very serious indeed. They may involve many people and there is a possibility of disposal of evidence. There is no requirement to consult community relations councils about interpreters. It is a matter for the police. In some circumstances they may find that community relations councils are very useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about the balance of inadmissibility of evidence and the breach of codes. We have found that generally courts have proved quite tough over that matter. Evidence is excluded when to allow it would be unfair. The court must look at the whole case. The Government are satisfied with Section 78 of PACE. Police officers are subject to disciplinary procedures for breaches of codes and therefore there is a double weapon against them.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about tape recording. That system will be fully operational by the end of 1991. Approximately half the forces in England and Wales have applied the system generally and the others are conducting some kind of recording. Implementation continues to go ahead quickly.

The noble Lord referred to video recordings and asked what progress was being made in that regard. As he knows, video recording experiments are being conducted. We hope that they will demonstrate whether or not they are sufficiently valuable for wider introduction. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, stated that such recordings have been found to be very valuable in the USA. I am sure that they have. We are trying to find out whether in the circumstances that we have spoken of they will be equally valuable here and how best they could be applied, if they are applied. In some ways the experiments are a cost-benefit exercise. The noble Lord asked when they would be used all over the country. I cannot answer that. It is a difficult issue and we shall not commit ourselves until we know that there will be a return on the additional money. It would mean more skilled interviewing, more guilty pleas, more training, and so forth. We will see how the experiments work out.

The noble Lord was concerned about mentally ill suspects. I agree that large numbers of mentally ill people end up in police custody and it is a matter of considerable concern to everybody that that should be the case. We do not offer guidance to the police as to what is a responsible adult. We realise that they have to play a significant role but we look to all parents and friends and professionals to help as best they can. The police are not in a position to judge how good a responsible adult is and who would or would not be classified as a responsible adult. If they are in doubt, the police should seek to ensure that a solicitor is present.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed concern about remand prisoners. Such prisoners are not held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and therefore the role of the custody officer is not the same. He will be anxious to get a mentally ill person into hospital if he possibly can. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated that mentally ill people used not to be questioned but that now they can be questioned. I think that there may be a misunderstanding in regard to that matter. We never debarred the questioning of mentally disordered persons. However, the safeguards are strong; for example, the requirement for an appropriate adult. Those taken to a police station as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 will not normally be questioned about any offence, as is clear from the code.

The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to ethical interviewing. It is essential that police officers have the skills and confidence to interview suspects properly. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers has recently set up a working party to see whether guidance can be given. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the very important work it is doing.

The noble Lord also referred to senior officers giving consent to searches of premises which are controlled by an arrested person. The authority of an inspector is required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Without amending that Act we cannot do anything about the matter. It is a point that we shall note for future consideration, without committing the Government one way or another.

As regards withdrawal of consent to search, I agree that it is inconvenient if a person suddenly refuses consent after first agreeing. I cannot see how one can stop that happening or pretend that consent exists if it does not exist.

I accept that the codes are complicated. They are lengthy and detailed. I know that anxiety existed at the outset as to how the police would be able to work them. It was thought that they would be intrusive to policing. I am glad to say—the noble Lord, Lord Knights, confirmed this—that that view has changed. On the whole, police officers are now content with the codes despite the fact that they are fairly stringent. The codes enable them to know the parameters within which they can work without being told that they have acted incorrectly.

I am grateful to noble Lords for welcoming these codes. I hope that the codes will prove another step forward in the successful operation of policing in this country.

On Question, Motion agreed to.