Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code E) Order 2015

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 General Committees

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start with the principle that out-of-court disposals and community resolutions in appropriate circumstances—I underline that 10 times—are a good thing. On the one hand, they can prevent someone from being criminalised where that is not appropriate, and on the other they can save police time.

We have all seen in our constituencies good examples of where those things have been used to good effect. To give one recent example from my constituency, in Castle Vale there has been an excellent joint venture by the community housing association and the police to tackle antisocial behaviour and nuisance neighbours. That has involved both out-of-court disposals and community resolutions and has brought people together as a consequence. Therefore, on the substance, I think we are as one.

On the process, I raise two points. First, it appears from our discussions with the Home Office that the evidence behind what is proposed is substantially anecdotal. Secondly, the three pilots in question—West Yorkshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire—have yet to report. One would have thought that a measure of this kind would be informed by the outcome, as opposed to pre-empting it.

The next point relates to a substantive point raised by the Bar Council, which sums up the situation very well:

“Whilst the purpose of the consultation is said to be to ‘support the policy which applies in England and Wales to give police options to use out-of-court disposals’…no evidence has been cited to justify the need for this change in police procedure nor any explanation as to why the four specified offences have been selected. The consultation paper does not address the potential adverse consequences of re-introducing the power of the police to conduct non-audio recorded interviews pre-arrest, which lead to the removal of the power in the first place.”

The Bar Council goes on to make a particularly important point:

“These include the scope for deliberate abuse of the power by the police, the lack of a definitive record of the interview, challenge to the content of the interview in court and further erosion of trust in the police. The rationale for permitting such interviews to take place post-arrest does not apply.”

Those substantive points of concern do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that this measure should be opposed, but they are substantial and it would be good if the Minister addressed them.

My final point is that the Government and the Opposition have been advocating the technological transformation of the police service—a digital revolution best achieved, as we have argued, through economies of scale by way of a serious national strategy to transform policing and make it more efficient and effective. That includes, of course, evidence-gathering. As the Bar Council also said,

“The proposed revision also appears to be contrary to the purpose of the Home Office funded pilot scheme, introduced by the Metropolitan Police in May 2014, to enhance the recording of the interaction of the police with the public by way of body worn video cameras.”

Put another way, we have embarked down the path of digital revolution, but this seems to be a step back. With those reservations, the Opposition are content to support the measure.