---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 130A:"After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—"    ““CONDITIONS OF AND TREATMENT UNDER DETENTION    Detention under any power in Part 1 of this Act shall be subject to section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (codes of practice).”” The noble Lord said: It is a matter of some regret that the one item which I said at Second Reading I wished to spend some time on should come up one hour and 10 minutes after the House should have risen. I can well understand that noble Lords may be a little bored and wish to leave before I finish. I shall be as brief as I can. The amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 24 to ensure that the conditions of treatment under detention made under any power in Part 1 are subject to Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Clauses 23 and 24 in Part 2 amend the Terrorism Act 2000, and people detained under those clauses will, I presume, be held under conditions prescribed in Schedule 8 to that Act and the codes issued under it. But no specific reference is made to which codes would apply to those held under Part 1. In the absence of a specific direction elsewhere in the Bill, I presume they will fall automatically, will they not, to be held under the PACE codes that apply to police detention generally? I have to go on a little because although that is a simple question, it is not a simple position. PACE Code C is one of five codes and lays down what is required generally. Other PACE codes deal with specific activities, and all five codes are ones with which the ordinary policeman has to be familiar. One hopes that they are quite simple. The latest revised version of PACE Code C, however, runs to 68 pages of fairly small print and is not quite as simple or self-contained as would at first seem. I shall take one example. Sub-paragraph (v) of Section 1.12 disapplies the provisions of the code generally from people held in custody under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It states that what applies to them is a different code of practice issued under paragraph 6 of Schedule 14 to that Act, which deals with the recording of interviews. That seems clear until one reads to the end of the section and finds that, nevertheless:"““The provisions on conditions of detention and treatment in sections 8 and 9 [of PACE Code C] must be considered as the minimum standards of treatment of such detainees””." Does that mean that the whole of the Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 14 code is subordinate to Sections 8 and 9 of the PACE Code C, or, indeed, what? If we go on, as I did, to search for statutory instruments made under the Terrorism Act 2000, the first we find is one introducing a,"““Code of practice on Audio Recording of Interviews . . . of a person detained under Schedule 7 to, or Section 41 of, the 2000 Act if the interview takes place in a police station””." But the code was not published and made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 14 of the TA 2000, as indicated in PACE Code C, but under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 8. I need to know whether there are two different codes under two different schedules and, if so, for what purposes and how are they most easily accessed by those people who need to know their rights in detention? I did not pursue the matter further because I had already done much more than someone unfamiliar with legislation could possibly do. That demonstrates a defect in what we are now doing. The Minister need not run like a hare to the Dispatch Box because I realise that at this time of night it is not reasonable, without notice, to expect answers to such detailed questions, but I shall need the answers before Report, naturally in writing. PACE and the PACE codes have just been extensively revised and agreed in Parliament last week, but the terms of reference of the review under which that was done do not appear to include the codes set up under other legislation—notably the Terrorism Act 2000—which appear to be interleaved with the PACE codes. When we get into this future Act of Parliament that we are making now, one has to consider the position of the unfortunate policeman who has to know which Act applies to this chap in this cell, which to that one, and which part of that one does not apply to him because of something that is in a third piece of legislation. Apart from an explanation of the process that I have just referred to, I would ask the Minister to consider instigating a further review, rather more quickly, of the interaction between PACE Codes A to E and codes under other Acts, notably under TA 2000, and bringing out a handy guide, not only for policemen who have to administer the legislation but also for suspects who have to live under it. I beg to move.