---

Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007

I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. We understand that it simply brings Northern Ireland PACE codes into line with changes that have already been made for England and Wales. The Minister admitted to a certain sense of déjà vu, which I also felt, on seeing some of the arrangements in the order. We both worked on Bills that I shall outline in a moment, so he will not be surprised at some of my concerns—and I have more concerns than the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, expressed. Liberal Democrats had a number of concerns when provisions were debated during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Police Reform Act 2002 and, in particular, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This Act, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will remember, was pushed through Parliament in the days before dissolution, just before the May 2005 general election, and did not receive adequate scrutiny. It was a very large Act. We have a number of concerns relating to the order. The first relates to the arrest provisions contained in Article 15. While we do not object in principle to the simplification of the criteria for arrest, we are concerned that this article grants too much discretion to individual officers. I have made that point before and I make it here again. That will lead to large numbers of unnecessary arrests. We are concerned at the use of the phrase that talks about being ““about to”” commit an offence. Preventive detention otherwise than for the purpose of initiating criminal prosecution is not permitted by Article 5 of the European convention. The police and others have powers to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. We are concerned about the general power of arrest. These conditions are drafted very broadly and it would be very easy for an officer to justify an arrest under one or both of them; since officers often have to make rapid decisions about whether to arrest, it would be natural for relatively inexperienced officers in particular to err on the side of caution, which could lead to further overcrowding of custody units and suites and increased use of police time and resources in dealing with people arrested for minor offences. In addition, we are concerned that there is considerable scope for abuse of these provisions and that they may be applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion against certain sectors of the community such as, for example, ethnic minorities. Article 5 of the convention does not permit arbitrary procedures for arrest. Can the Minister assure us that the provisions will, at the very least, be monitored and reviewed by the Government? We are also concerned that giving officers the power to arrest for a minor offence could lead to a higher number of arrests of children and young people. It would be very useful to have a system to analyse the effect of this provision on young people. We very much welcome the provisions in Article 18 of the order, which amend the current definition of an arrested juvenile under PACE from a person under the age of 17 years to a person under the age of 18 years. That will rectify the disparity between the extension of the youth justice system to 17 year-olds under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and their continued treatment as adults under PACE. This was in contravention of domestic law under the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and international standards, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, or Beijing rules, which define children as anyone up to the age of 18 years. It is right that 17 year-olds are afforded the same safeguards and protections as juveniles. We are pleased that the Government have recognised that, although I am disappointed that it will not come into force until some time in the future. The Minister will not be surprised to hear my concerns about the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 which lower the authorisation level from a superintendent to an inspector for the taking of intimate and non-intimate samples without consent. I remember being very concerned about these when we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House. I never won my battle on that issue, but I seek the Minister’s reassurance that inspectors will be given appropriate and adequate training in this respect. Finally, the provisions in Articles 31 and 36 on photographing suspects and taking their footprints are also problematic. Under the present PACE codes, additional safeguards should be in place when the young or vulnerable are required to undergo any intrusive act at the request of a constable. If young or vulnerable people are taken to a police station for those activities to be undertaken, the requirement is usually that an appropriate adult is with them. Those protections appear to go out of the window under the new provisions. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance.