---

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2005

My Lords, both noble Lords have been very helpful in their comments. I am grateful to them for their support. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we have carefully consulted on the changes that have been made, and given careful consideration to representations received from a wide range of organisations, serving police officers and those who are affected by the changes in one way or another. On stop and search, we ought to be careful in distinguishing between the powers available under Section 1 of PACE and the terrorism legislation. The latter provides that the power is exercised only in those areas designated by a senior officer. That needs to be precisely understood. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked a number of questions about stop and search, and I would like to reflect on some of the points that he made and provide him with longer and more thoughtful answers than I am able to provide from the Dispatch Box today. He also made some important points about the role of CSOs. Community support officers are generally recognised as having had an extremely effective introduction. I think the noble Lord supports the way in which they work. They are required to be trained and competent in all areas of work for which they are designated. That is obviously the responsibility of chief officers, who ensure that the designation does not apply to the exercise of stop-and-search powers. That would be going beyond their remit. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made a point about the execution of warrants. We think that the level of accountability and scrutiny is right for the way in which warrants are exercised. We have no doubt that they will work well and certainly they have worked well previously. I have little more to add on that, other than that all premises warrants must be shown to be necessary both to the court and to an inspector, independent of the investigation before entry to any premises not listed on the warrant. The proposals increase rather than dilute the evidence-based approach to applying for and executing search warrants. Warrants are scrutinised carefully by the courts when the endorsed warrant is returned. The exercise of it is subject to the scrutiny of an inspector who is not involved directly in investigations. Therefore, in our estimation, there is proper invigilation. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also asked about appropriate adults. They provide a useful role and are not to be subject to the legal privilege. Guidance is contained in the National Appropriate Adult Network and Home Office Circular 2003. There have been carefully discussions between the Home Office and the network. I understand that the network is satisfied by the way in which it sees the system working. We are working with the network to review the guidance and are considering the ability of the police to interview appropriate adults. For example, that may be done only in exceptional circumstances and with the priority of a senior police officer. Exceptional circumstances might relate to the seriousness of the offence; to national security—I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the importance of that; to where there is suspicion or likelihood; to where there has been harm or injury to other people; or to where it is suspected by law enforcement officers that there has been collusion between defendants. I hope that that covers most of the noble Lord’s points. Any I have missed, I shall seek to pick up outside the Chamber today.