I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out from 'is' to end and insert 'inserted after ''recorded'', ''if requested by the person''.'.

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in

clause 6, page 4, line 36, at end insert 'and inserted instead ''and shall offer the detained person an opportunity to make a written record of''.'.

No. 33, in

clause 6, page 4, line 37, at beginning insert 'In'.

No. 36, in

clause 6, page 4, line 37, at beginning insert 'After'.

No. 34, in

clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out 'is omitted' and insert 'there is inserted after the first ''record'' the words ''if made''.'.

No. 18, in

clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out 'is omitted' and insert 'there is inserted—

''(3) A written record shall be kept of any money in the possession of the detained person''.'.

No. 74, in

clause 6, page 4, line 38, at end add—

'(3) It shall be the duty of the police to keep all belongings of a detained person in a clear, transparent container in a secure place and account to him for them on their return.'.

This important clause is of some concern to practitioners of law in the legal profession and the police. It removes the requirement on the custody officer under PACE to

''record or cause to be recorded'' everything that a detained person has with him or her on entering custody. The custody officer must still find out what the person has with him, but any recording is entirely at the custody officer's discretion. For reasons that I shall develop, I have concerns about removing that duty from the custody officer, because it is in the interest of the police and, arguably, of defendants that the law should remain as it is. My amendments would provide that a defendant could request a record to be kept, and that if he did, it should be kept. Also, he should be offered that option on every relevant occasion. Amendment No. 18 would provide, in terms, that even if the clause was not amended in those ways, and a full written record was not required, an exception should be made in the case of cash in the possession of the defendant.

Currently, the police must make a record of everything that the defendant has with him that is of value or that may be used by him to harm himself. All such items are inevitably removed from a defendant. Interestingly, practice varies from police station to police station and county to county, and it is sometimes left to the custody officer's discretion to decide what items should be removed, and the reasons to be given. For example, a Rolex watch is an item of value and would come off and go into the custody record. A pocket knife would be taken for the reason that it could be used to harm the defendant or another.

I recently asked a very senior police officer about earrings, which a large number of young men wear. Oddly enough, the response was that at the station in question the practice was to leave them with the defendant. The conversation provoked the officer to say that, interestingly, a comb is sometimes left with a defendant and sometimes taken and recorded on a separate sheet. Not every police station takes the same approach, but the principle is that a record is kept of everything that the defendant has with him. My amendments are needed so that the provision removing the requirement to keep a record is watered down sufficiently to preserve the protection of both police and defendant.

There are obvious reasons why belts and shoelaces would be taken from a defendant. What happens to a wallet containing cards and money? You may know, Mr. Illsley, that custody suites are videoed round the clock. The police make a terribly good effort to ensure that all that they do is caught on video as well as recording it on paper. In dealing with a wallet, they would mention that there was a wallet containing £50 cash and a Visa card. Then they would note on the written record ''sundry other cards''. A Boots Advantage card is not an item of value, or one with

which one would damage oneself. They might also make a note of ''sundry other photographs''. Those are the categories: valuable items, possibly damaging items, and items sometimes generically included. A full and proper record is kept.

Is it a burden? The answer is yes and no. Until recently, I did not know that the police do not regard computerised records of items taken from a defendant as a burden. It is relatively straightforward, but not every county is computerised, and some forces still take the record by hand. Has the Minister asked chief constables whether their forces are computerised to the extent that the written records of defendants' items kept at a police station are on a computer, or still done by hand? Surrey police force became computerised for that purpose in 1993.

My experience of record keeping of items removed from a defendant and kept at a police station is gleaned from my contact with Surrey police force. I spoke to several, though not many, officers in the area who believed that the computerised records were not a burden now, but had been in the past when it was all done by hand. That is not surprising, but the police face serious burdens in making other records, to which I shall return in a moment.

Why, then, does my amendment refer to keeping a separate record of the money? The answer is plain: without a written record of the money that a defendant has on his or her person, the way is open for allegations of impropriety against the police later.

It is interesting to note the observations of the Metropolitan police force, which broadly supported the proposal

''in so far as it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy'',

but its submission also referred to

''concerns that implementing this proposal may, on occasion, leave police more open to allegations of impropriety.''

That is the view of the Metropolitan police and it is clearly in the interests of the police as well as the defendant to keep a detailed record of the money, but the clause removes the requirement to record

''everything which a detained person has with him''.

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I explain that if the clause is passed, the guidance will make it clear that the money and articles of significant value should continue to be recorded.

I am grateful to the Minister, but once again this is a bolt from the blue. I know of no guidance: is it in PACE, or another addition to PACE, another code or what? The Minister referred to items of ''significant value'', but what is that? What is the value of my Omega watch, which my dear father gave me? I took it in for a service the other day, expecting it to be worth about £400 in today's money, but was told that it was worth about £20. My father is still alive and well, and I went and told him. The Minister says that, in accordance with the guidance, items of significant value will have to be recorded, but that is no answer, as my hon. Friends would agree.

I turn to the second reason that it is vital that money is kept. The hon. Member for Wellingborough is a barrister of distinction, who has appeared for defendants in court. Undoubtedly he, like others at the Bar and in the legal profession, has appeared on an overnight case. Let us imagine that a defendant is arrested at 9 o'clock at night for being drunk and disorderly. The hon. Gentleman will probably not have taken a small case like that except in the very early days of his career, which subsequently blossomed, but I have to take such cases from the judicial end, at Bow Street, Camberwell Green or Greenwich.

It is 10 o'clock in the morning and the defendant enters. The documents are with the jailer. The charge is drunk and disorderly. When asked what he pleads, he replies, ''guilty''. He is told to stand up. When the jailer is asked how much money the defendant had on him, he replies, ''He had £17.50 on him, your honour.'' The defendant is fined £15, payable forthwith, and told to go away. End of story.

That is a very helpful tool for the judiciary in overnight cases—which occur all around London. In the need to get a fine paid, being able to know how much money is in the defendant's pocket is very useful. Just imagine the chief district judge at Bow Street asking how much money a defendant has on him and being told, ''I can't tell you, your honour.'' When the judge asks, ''Why not?'', the jailer replies, ''Because under this clause I do not have to keep a record of it, your honour. Guidance was sent in a letter asking me to do that, but I did not choose to observe it.'' The courts would not like that at all. I provide that illustration to make the point that recording money, and having the requirement to do so in the statute, is an important factor for the courts.

The necessity to enshrine the requirement in statute has been questioned. The Minister might say that it is bureaucracy, and that it is causing the police a lot of problems—causing them to waste much time that would be better spend investigating serious crime. We know that serious crime is the great scourge of this country, and we are told that removing this obligation on the police will free them up to do the work that they are meant to be doing. Any party, such as mine, that queries that suggestion might be categorised as being anti-law and order.

Before the hon. Gentleman continues, he should be aware that we have the negatives of his last election campaign, picturing him in front of Conservative posters that said, ''We must relieve the police of onerous bureaucracy so they can get out there on the streets and do their job''. I just put that on the record before he makes any incriminating statements.

I do not have to incriminate myself. I am not under caution, so nothing that I say—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Illsley—can subsequently be used against me. [Hon. Members: ''But it will.''] As for the last election, I have no idea where I was photographed, or under what posters.

That has begun to worry me somewhat, but I shall ponder that later.

The hon. Gentleman takes a robust view on law and order and frequently produces very cogent arguments, but the matter under discussion is by no means the worst of the bureaucratic burdens on the police, in terms of list keeping. According to many police to whom I have spoken, the real burden falls when they search a property. That burden is immense and serious. How will the Minister change that?

Under today's rules, when the police seize property from someone's house, there is no computerised way of keeping a record of it. They have to write out, longhand, in an exhibit book, an entire note of everything seized, but that is not the end of matter. The police officer must then transfer everything from the book to a seized property form. He or she writes everything down once in longhand, disappears to get a seized property form and then laboriously transfers every single item on to it in writing. One might think that that would be the end of the matter, but ''Oh, no it isn't!'' There is more to come—there is a third problem, and I ask the Minister to explain how he will solve it. The problem is that the entire lot has to be loaded manually into a computer. That makes three steps.

The Minister has clearly spoken to police officers, and he would not have produced such a clause had he not known of the many problems that they face as regards form filling. If we asked police officers what their worst problem with form filling was, 99 out of 100 would say, ''This frightful problem with how we have to record house searches. If you just got rid of that, life would be much easier.''

The Minister may say that the purpose of the clause is to remove bureaucracy, to make police officers' lives easier and to free them up to fight crime more readily, but I would suggest that he was wrong on two counts. First, the police do not agree, particularly where the service has been computerised. Secondly, a case could be made in relation to property seized from a house. The explanation provided by his advisers as to how the Bill would overcome such problems suggests that more police time could be freed up in that regard than officers could begin to imagine.

I tabled the amendments to make the following points to the Minister. First, recording amounts of money is not a burden. Secondly, it has worked well so far. Thirdly, it is in the interests of the defendant. Fourthly, it is very much in the interests of the police to record sums so that there are no allegations of impropriety. Fifthly, it is in the interests of the courts. Those are compelling arguments for not changing the law or for changing it only minimally. As regards the improprieties involved, my words are backed by the Metropolitan police, and the arguments are compelling.

I conclude with a question. What evidence is there to suggest that we must change existing practice?

I look forward to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking attacking the other problems of bureaucracy that he identified, and I am sure that he will get a sympathetic hearing from the

Minister. Again, however, we are talking about a balance between ensuring that the police can do their job and having the necessary safeguards to deal with the one or two police officers, out of a police force of many thousands, who might, for some reason, abuse their position.

I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister to put on the record the fact that the provisions will help police officers to do their jobs. We want reasonable safeguards, which I am sure he will tell us about. That is the only reason why I tabled amendment No. 74. It would ensure that a transparent container was put in a secure place and sealed so that everyone was content that security had been properly handled. Nothing more needs to be said, and I hope that he can give those assurances.

We had an illuminating passage on the sentencing policy of the of Bow Street magistrates court. The message is clearly that if people intend to be drunk and disorderly in that area, they should not carry ready cash with them, so that they get a lighter sentence.

No, the fine is £25 or one day's imprisonment in lieu, to be served immediately.

In that case, we must moderate our behaviour accordingly. There is a serious point, however, which has been partly made by the hon. Gentleman. I do not entirely buy the amendments, which are unnecessarily opaque and may not achieve his objective. I see merit in amendment No. 18 and in the point that was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

I do not have enormous concern about the arrested person and their property in such circumstances. Normal safeguards are sufficient, although it is always as well to ensure that there is no scope for impropriety on the part of the police. My principal concern, which goes back to my experience in a police authority over several years, is the effect on the police officer involved and the risk that he runs of being accused of impropriety. I have seen far too many disciplinary cases brought by accused people against police officers on the basis of complaints that are trivial, unnecessary, inappropriate or malicious. Allegations about police officers' behaviour have to be investigated, even if they are eventually not substantiated. Not to have a proper record of property that is on the arrested person at the time when they are taken into custody is to invite a complaint against the police on those grounds.

I wholeheartedly agree with the wish to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy for the police, but the bureaucracy that is involved in investigating a complaint is massively more than that which is involved in making a record of the property that is in the possession of the custody sergeant. It is a complete reversal of logic to say that the measure is a good way of reducing bureaucracy. It will lead to more litigation and the undertaking of more disciplinary complaints procedures.

On some occasions, property has evidential value. In such cases, it would be too easy for the defendant simply to say, ''No, that article was never in my possession and you cannot prove that it was, even if the police are using it as evidence.'' That is cause for serious concern.

We must consider better and less bureaucratic ways of recording property. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ensure that all property is cached in an appropriate receptacle that is sealed at the time. Perhaps video recording could be used to produce a ''Generation Game''-style computer line-up that itemises at the time each article in the presence of the arrested person. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, there may be other ways of using computers to ensure that records are kept. However it is done, records must be kept, especially of cash, but of any article that is taken by the officer.

The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument most cogently and making some powerful points. On his last point about the essential need for a record, does he agree that one possible way of avoiding paperwork might be the completion of a tape, dictated by the officer in the presence of the defendant, which runs through his property, after which he agrees that it is his property? That would be much quicker than the laborious method of writing for which the Government are arguing.

Precisely so. I agree that there must be better ways of doing it than expecting anyone to write out a list in longhand, which is time-consuming. There are other ways of doing it and the Government have not yet sufficiently applied their mind to that.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is astonishing that the clause will omit the requirement but the guidance notes will say that it must be done. What on earth is the point of that? If the idea is to reduce bureaucracy, the Government will not achieve it if the guidance notes reintroduce the proposal as a non-statutory requirement. That is what the Minister led us to believe a few moments ago. He must now explain exactly what he means, although he has only five minutes to do so.

We will resist all the amendments in the group.

I was surprised, given the hon. Member for Woking's extensive call on the views of the Home Affairs Committee earlier, that he omitted, no doubt unintentionally, to refer to its view on this matter. It said:

''We welcome the provisions for . . . repeal of the requirement to record detailed particulars of a detained person's property . . . These appear to us to be sensible measures to reduce unnecessary police bureaucracy, without impinging on the rights of the accused''.

That is a very strong argument for supporting the clause.

I am willing to make the hon. Gentleman a pre-Christmas offer. If he will declare that he is willing to delete from the Bill all the bits about which the Home Affairs Committee has expressed concern, we might do a deal not to oppose the rest.

The offer is tempting, but I shall resist it. We will all continue with our existing practice of drawing on sources of support that happen to back up our argument at the time. On this issue, if not on all others, the Home Affairs Committee is entirely right.

I do not quite understand where the hon. Member for Woking is coming from because I reflect on the powerful words of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on Second Reading, who talked about the queue in front of the custody sergeant. The clause is all about trying to reduce that queue. In essence, it will remove from police the current requirement to record everything in every case and give them discretion about what they choose to record in future. It arises out of the PACE review, which states:

''The police identify the requirement to list a detained person's property in full as time-consuming and not always necessary.''

The clause will give them discretion about how detailed a record they keep in particular cases, which will be a matter for individual judgment. It offers scope for alternative approaches to property management, in which regard my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made the helpful suggestion of sealable property bags.

There might be other ways in which the police choose to record matters. The hon. Member for Woking referred to a tape record. I will need to double check that that would be permissible; it seems to be a sensible suggestion, and the tape could form part of the custody record.

The clause tries to offer the police flexibility in recording, which is in part the answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Saying that the guidance would state that the recording of money and other items of significant value should continue to be done is not undoing the purpose of the clause, but saying that the police do not have to list a packet of Polo mints and three paper clips. It depends on the detail that people go into—

Would you do it now?

It depends on how the current arrangements are interpreted. This is a sensible measure, and we can trust the police to use it in a sensible way. They will have more incentive than anyone else to ensure that they record things that may subsequently be an issue if the charge is preferred and the case comes to court. It is a good step to take and I commend it to the Committee.

I am marginally confused about what time we finish today.

In one minute's time.

That is very helpful. It means that I must take a decision that I did not think I would have to take about whether to push the amendments to a Division. The Minister has been most helpful—

It is Christmas.

The Minister is right, it is Christmas. On the basis that he will think about the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till Tuesday 7 January at half-past Four o'clock.