---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, in relation to those matters, we do know that custody sergeants throughout the country have with due diligence applied the codes that we currently have. It would be reasonable to anticipate, therefore, that they will continue so to do. I reassure the noble Lord by saying that a large investment has been made to enhance training for police officers for those who will undertake what may increasingly become a more administrative function. I remind the noble Lord that we have invested nearly £2 billion in our IT system to make a number of the procedures more robust and to give them greater integrity than they have had before. It is clearly important that codes governing the treatment and rights of those arrested are subjected to proper consultation and scrutiny. There is no difference between ourselves and the noble Lord on that point; but I believe that the existing systems and safeguards under PACE are already sufficient for that purpose. Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sets out a statutory list of consultees that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consult before the PACE codes or revisions to them can be laid before Parliament. Persons to be consulted include persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; persons whom he considers to represents the interests of chief officers of police; the General Council of the Bar; the Law Society of England and Wales; the Institute of Legal Executives; and such other persons as he sees fit. So there is a very broad spectrum that my right honourable friend or his successors in title could consult. The last item on the list that I mentioned is very important, because the Government have interpreted it very widely. There are a further 20 or so organisations that are consulted as a matter of course; those include organisations such as Liberty, Justice, the Police Federation, Centrex—which is the police training organisation—the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Coalition of Children’s Charities. So I can provide to your Lordships a comprehensive list of consultees if required, but I think that I can equally address the crux of the noble Lord’s amendment of engaging experience and practitioner knowledge in an advisory capacity for the preparation of the draft code and its implementation. Again, I invite the noble Lord to remember the provisions established for amendment of the PACE codes; we have a register of changes page on the Home Office website where stakeholders, practitioners and members of the public can submit suggested changes and improvements. So all suggestions are placed on the register, and we as a department are held to account in a very public way in taking forward those suggestions. Officials have had bilateral meetings with key stakeholders on the main areas of change and work closely with organisations and agencies during the drafting process. I hope from what I have said that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that he was right to say that we need to consult; he was right to say that consultation has to be broad; he was right to say that training is of importance—and consistency of application, too. I hope that, bearing in mind that we are in such ripe agreement, he will feel able to withdraw and not to press his amendment.