I beg to move amendment No.64, in

clause 7, page 5, line 14, after 'must', insert

'publish it online one calendar month before he intends to lay it before Parliament and'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 20, in

clause 7, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

'(6) No code or revised code issued under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 65, in

clause 7, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

'(6) Where a Code is being established for the first time or where revisions are of substantial importance, Parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution is required.'.

No. 215, in

clause 7, page 5, line 36, at end insert—

'(7A) No code or revised code issued under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

The amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny of the codes of practice. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about the possibility of effective parliamentary scrutiny. No doubt he has proposals on how to bring that about, and perhaps even some ideas on how parliamentary Committees could be involved. The amendments would provide that all changes to the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, whether subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament or not, would be published online a month before being laid before Parliament.

The intention would be to obtain the views of practitioners—people at the coal face such as police officers—who would have access to the draft and would be able to make sensible comments on it. Those could be taken into account in the normal process of consultation that happens when such provisions are drafted. It is important to allow people access to the process, so that we can learn from their expertise and so that we do not have to keep on amending the PACE codes of practice. Having the documents online would be of great assistance.

Amendment No. 20 is based on the proposals of the Home Affairs Committee and the intention is that major revisions or additions would be subject to parliamentary approval. Knowing my hon. Friend the Minister's deep commitment to parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, I am sure that he will be able to advise us on the best way to proceed.

I wish you and the Committee a happy new year, Mr. Illsley, and I hope that the Committee will make progress in the next few weeks in an atmosphere of pleasant co-operation.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has put his finger on the drastic nature of the changes proposed in the Bill to the way in which PACE operates and is reviewed. When the Bill was first discussed it never crossed my mind that there would be so fundamental an alteration of the way in which the PACE codes were put together.

I do not want to speak in too general a way about an amendment that is very specific, but it is right to mention that PACE has always struck me as having stood the test of time rather well. When I was called to the Bar, PACE did not exist and endless hours of court time were taken up in disputes about whether the police had followed proper procedure in investigating an offence, in dealing with an offender, and in other matters. Once PACE came into force, it quickly commanded widespread acceptance, and my experience was that such disputes began to fade into the background. There was confidence that the police would implement the system properly, in a way that the public would consider reasonable.

I accept that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not written in tablets of stone, but nevertheless, it was envisaged that changes to the rules would be made through processes of widespread consultation, including a substantial parliamentary dimension. When one looks at the powers that the clause gives the Secretary of State in respect of the codes of practice, it seems to me that there is at least the potential—although I am sure that this was not necessarily intended by the Home Secretary—for changes to be made without any form of prior consultation. One of the questions that the Minister will have to answer in the stand part debate is what is the Government's reasoning for introducing such a drastic change to the way in which the PACE codes of practice are amended.

If there is to be a change, at least the amendment is a small step in the right direction, which is why I support it. The proposal struck me as sensible, if we are moving down that road. I see no reason why changes should not be published online, although I am afraid that my experience in the House suggests that, despite ministerial promises that there will always be prior publication, all too frequently we see something the day before it is put into operation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give the amendment a favourable nod. In doing that, however, I hope that we can initiate a debate about why the Government believe that they must change the old system, because I am not persuaded that it is necessary. If we are to change it, safeguards are certainly necessary, and the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North seems to me to be an eminently good starting point.

A happy new year to you, Mr. Illsley, and to other colleagues.

The amendments are important, as is the issue. It is interesting that in a great big criminal justice Bill like this, where press and public attention has concentrated on three or four issues, other issues that would normally arouse considerable interest have been relegated to the first or second division. This is one such issue, because the powers of the police, as part of the criminal justice process, relate to people's liberties. We are talking about the way in which the police use their powers. A concept that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) remembers was controversial when the legislation was passed in the 1980s is no longer controversial, because people, the police and legal practitioners—as well as those who regularly appear as what we might call recipients of the service—understand the rules. That is a good thing.

I will not anticipate the breadth of the stand part debate, but there seem to be five main areas. We are talking about stop and search powers, which are highly controversial; search and seizure; detention, treatment and questioning; identification; and tape recording of interviews. I want to deal quickly with the last one. Some of us were party to the debates on the recent Northern Ireland legislation. It is becoming accepted as normal that all interviews will be tape recorded, which is a far better way of proceeding. Indeed, it is my understanding that we are moving towards the televising interviews, as soon as the technology, money and resources permit, not only in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland, England and Wales, so the matter is uncontroversial. If people are satisfied that technology cannot be tampered with, and that its use is the norm, it will be much less controversial.

The other proposals are more controversial. They are administrative matters, but when we are dealing with depriving individuals of freedom and their treatment in custody, I share the view of many people outside the House, as well as of the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Beaconsfield, that we need to introduce changes carefully, building in all the proper safeguards to that process.

I have no problem with the amendments or with publishing information online. I have no problem with the work of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on this issue. I do not disagree with him on some of the substance of what he wants by way of police files. I agree with his procedural view that we are more likely to get things right if we provide people with information early in draft form so that they can make an intelligent contribution. To give a more topical example, if we had done that when deciding on the sentences for gun crime there would not have been two different Home Office positions in two days. This has left the Home Office looking thoroughly embarrassed on an issue on which the parties could have agreed and on which there has been much discussion to reach agreement.

On amendment No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—who apologises that he is on duty further down the

Corridor on one of the numerous Home Office Bills rumbling through Committee stage; there are three, and he is looking after one of them—and I take the view that we should not have a code or a revised code unless Parliament agrees. We are fully signed up to that. If the amendment is lost, the Minister will have to work very hard to persuade me that the clause should remain in the Bill.

I know that the police have argued that as matters have settled down this can be done through a much less formal and more flexible process. Parliament must sign up to these proposals. Only when such matters are being voted on do we focus our attention on the implications; otherwise they lie in a pile of papers on our desks, and no one notices the difficulties.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North makes a similar point about amendment No. 65 and seeks to persuade the Committee that we should have an affirmative resolution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I subscribe to that. I hope therefore that the Minister will tell us that although there is a case for flexibility in minor drafting matters that do not affect liberty, important matters will come before Parliament. The difficulty is in distinguishing between a change in the code to accommodate new technology or a generally agreed change to identification evidence or identification parades and proposals that will change the regime for custody cells and custody suites. That is the difficulty. We must ensure that we do not delay entirely reasonable proposals that would have been agreed to after consultation.

There was a review, predating the Bill, of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and that is perfectly proper. There was pressure from the police for greater flexibility. Effectively, the Government are saying that it will be sufficient for them to talk to police organisations and authorities and to those responsible for implementing the legislation. That is the wrong view. Although they are independent, they are technocrats, the servants of the state. The citizenry, who are the majority of the population, do not have the same representation; there is no Association of Chief Citizenry, no Superintendents Citizenry Association and no Citizens Federation. There must be ways of consulting the citizens on these matters, and as usual the minority will spot the difficulties in defence of the liberties of the majority. We must find ways of ensuring such consultation, and I hope that the Minister will persuade us to accept that small changes can be made without a big bureaucratic procedure while protecting everybody by ensuring that big or significant changes have proper scrutiny and parliamentary approval.

We must also ensure that the citizenry at large can have their say. Someone who is nicked on the Old Kent road on a Friday night or a Saturday morning may never have thought about these things before, but the powers, duties, rights and responsibilities given under the PACE will suddenly become quite important. They will be as important to Members of Parliament who get nicked, as recent evidence has shown, as to those who have never been anywhere near Parliament.

We should not delude ourselves that this is insubstantial business: it is very important, and I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the amendments. Indeed, I hope that he starts the new year as he nearly ended last year by generously agreeing that there is a jolly good idea on the amendment paper—and that he will put us all in a good mood by accepting it.

I join others, Mr. Illsley, in wishing you and all hon. Members a happy new year.

Who could resist the blandishments just offered by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)? We may well cover a lot of the ground in this debate that would normally constitute a clause stand part debate. It seems to me that the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and by the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey have gone to the heart of the issues raised by clause 7.

The Minister has put his finger on it. The response that we get to the individual amendments will determine whether we believe that clause 7 should stand part.

I accept that point entirely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North asked about online publication. I believe that it is not necessary or appropriate to write his suggestion into the Bill. However, I recollect that under current arrangements, consultation for draft PACE codes usually lasts for about three months, and I can see no reason why, when they are published for consultation, they should not also be posted on the Home Office website. That would meet the gist of the amendment. Indeed, I am happy to give the assurance that we will make that part of our normal practice, because it is a way of making matters on which the Home Office is consulting available to a wider audience.

In essence, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey put his finger on the issue that we are trying to address in the clause. I accept entirely what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said about the merits of PACE as a mechanism. I have no doubt that it allowed us to take an enormous step forward, and we have learned from the experience. It has been of great benefit to everyone by making clear their rights and responsibilities in the circumstances covered by the codes. However, the fundamental problem—I shall come to it straight away—is how to maintain appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of substantial revisions and of new codes yet not maintain the current arrangements for every single change, which, given the nature of those changes, can be a cumbersome procedure.

That is not the fault of a particular Administration. I believe that the first PACE codes came into being in 1986, and we are now in the process of dealing with the third revision. However, the practical consequence of

the procedure used by previous and present Governments is that police officers and the ordinary citizen—the person arrested in the Old Kent road about whom we heard a moment ago—are having to work from out-of-date codes. They do not reflect current practice or changes in legislation because the process of amending them is so cumbersome, so the people whose job it is to use the codes are working from something that is out of date. From the practitioner's point of view—for the police officer and the arrested person and for the general public—that is not sensible. That is a practical problem, and we are trying to address it while ensuring an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Home Affairs Committee raised that issue in its report on the Bill, and I undertook on Second Reading that we would consider it.

On reflection, I can see that there is an arguable case for maintaining the existing procedures for detailed scrutiny when a new code is being established. In drafting the Bill, we considered how ''substantial revision'' might be defined. We were advised that it was difficult to devise a form of words to enable a distinction to be made between a substantial revision and a less substantial one, of the type that has been referred to by the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Beaconsfield. There is still a broad set of potential changes that does not warrant the degree of scrutiny required by the PACE provisions.

How can we find a way forward? My suggestion is that we should return to the matter later, perhaps on Report, and my plea is that Committee members apply their minds to ways in which we might deal with it. For example, we could think of mechanisms such as consulting the Home Affairs Committee about what constitutes a substantial revision and what does not. Ultimately, somebody will have to make a decision about the dividing line between substantial and less substantial, but I invite the Committee to reflect on the fact that we are prepared to return to the matter. The current arrangements must be changed because they do not help practitioners. At the same time, I accept that we must have a mechanism for effective parliamentary scrutiny of major changes, particularly when new codes are being put in place.

The Minister has hinted at an idea for dealing with secondary legislation, codes and other matters that progress through both Houses for approval that has been around but has never crystallised. That is that, rather than going through the whole process, such matters be considered by a Select Committee of both Houses and, for example, the Human Rights Committee. In that way there would be parliamentary scrutiny but it would need approval. I am willing to be reasonable about the matter. If we could use that model to create a process by which other legislation could progress through Parliament without everybody having to turn up, pitch in and vote, there would be safeguards and people would be secure. We would have to debate the parameters, but I ask him to consider that as a response to his suggestion.

It is a very helpful point. The test will be whether the procedure is quicker and more effective in dealing with the fundamental problem. The matter has arisen because of the PACE review, which we have referred to in debates on previous clauses. The review made the point that it is not helpful for police officers to have to work with codes that are out of date and do not reflect legislation. That is clearly barmy. We need to find a mechanism that enables us to provide practitioners with codes that are up to date. In that spirit I am happy to undertake to reflect on the matter and to return to it at a later stage.

Picking up what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about an affirmative resolution of both Houses, affirmative resolutions are not very onerous on the House. The matter goes to Committee, and if it is non-contentious it is all over in three and a half minutes. If it is contentious, it is debated and might take up the allotted time. At some point during deferred Divisions it is voted on by the House. Nobody can say that that is very time-consuming. Would it not be a good safeguard to have affirmative resolutions even for routine matters? I do not see how that would handicap the Government in progressing business or in altering codes when necessary.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, that is, in essence, the procedure that has applied until now; it was used for the first and second set of revisions and the current ones. During all that time, the problem has been the total time that has had to be allowed for the consultation arrangements, the timetable, the laying of the new code, the period before it can be debated in the House, the affirmative resolution procedure and the vote. The net result has been that police officers are working with out-of-date documents. That cannot be sensible. At the risk of repeating myself, the challenge is to find a means of ensuring that we have both proper parliamentary scrutiny for significant changes and a more effective system in order to get those codes approved.

My hon. Friend has been incredibly generous: he has made an offer to Committee members to write to him, after which he will come up with something on Report that will enhance the parliamentary process. That is a creative and innovative way to handle the problem. I wish to see the Home Affairs Committee involved, because it has the expertise in the area. It would be able to operate quickly.

I remind my hon. Friend of one point made about amendment No. 64 that concerned placing that information on the Home Office website. Would that occur during the consultation period? If, for example, serving police officers wanted to access any proposed change, could they e-mail their views on what that change should entail? That would allow Ministers to benefit from serving officers' expertise and to amend the draft before it was laid before the House. If the consultation takes place before the draft is presented, we will be able to include people in the debate.

I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that, when the draft report is published for consultation with those with whom the

Home Secretary seeks to consult under the clause, it should be put on the Home Office website at that point. The management of the consultation process is an issue. One must be realistic: not everyone can receive a response to a submission. However, to put the draft report on the website would allow a wider audience to see what is going on and express their views and for discussion to take place. In that spirit, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 7, page 5, line 18, after 'police', insert—

'(ba) the Law Society of England and Wales,

(bb) the General Council of the Bar,'.

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The Registrar of Members' Interests has previously advised me that any issue that I wish to raise in my capacity as an MP that directly relates to my own trade union requires me to declare that interest in advance. I seek your advice on membership of the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar, which I would describe as trade unions.

It is up to hon. Members what declarations they make before they speak in Committee. The Committee has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said about whether the Law Society and the Bar Council are trade unions. That is a question for the certification officer.

If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has not cottoned on by now to my interest in the matter as a member of the Bar, there can be no help for him, as far as I can see. However, I declared an interest on Second Reading. I rather took it to be a blanket declaration that might stand the test of time in Committee. I do not wish to labour the point with the Minister, but the Bar Council and the Law Society are rightly concerned that they should be part of the consultation process.

The Law Society has to help in the administration of PACE and the Bar Council must pick up the pieces when the case goes to court.

If the Minister introduces the new system, it will be in his interest, and that of the Government and the good working of the justice system, to ensure also that the groups in question are in the list of people to be consulted. That is irrespective of whether there will be affirmative resolutions, and all the other matters that we have discussed. I hope that he will feel able to make a positive response. If such groups are included in the list, it will provide an assurance that the consultation will go a little bit wider than merely the police. Just as the Bar Council and the Law Society represent interest groups, so ultimately do the police. We hope that they also represent the wider community in exactly the same way as the other bodies do.

There is something slightly one-sided about the wording of the revised section 67(4) of the 1984 Act. I note that the Secretary of State may consult with

''such other persons as he thinks fit.''

However, I am bound to say that a Home Secretary who introduced a change—even a minor one—without consulting the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar would be extremely stupid. Might it not then be advantageous to include those bodies in the Bill? The point is simple, and the Minister could respond to it generously, in a way that would send out a good signal of the Government's intentions. I cannot think of a circumstance in which those two groups would not have to be included in the consultation. If I were to push as far as I could, I would say that solicitors would have to be, because they are present at police stations when the codes are implemented. The Minister could leave out the Bar if he wanted to, but he might regret it.

As to leaving out the Bar, I declare an interest in its not being too comprehensively left out.

I want briefly to add to what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. The codes are about police procedures. However, it should be recognised from the requirement on the Home Secretary to consult other persons as he thinks fit—he will consult such bodies as, for instance, the mental health pressure groups and the children's charities, because the codes are in part designed to help vulnerable people in custody—that the codes are not merely police procedure. The aspect that is currently being left out is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives the codes legal force. Consequently, they go beyond the function of regulating relations between the police and people in custody: they are used in court proceedings as evidence. It would consequently be a great mistake to leave out not only solicitors, who look after relations in the police station between defendants and the police, but barristers, who are the masters of the rules of evidence, and are far more exposed to those daily in the higher courts than any police officer could be. I suggest that mistakes will be made unless those obvious sources have to be consulted. It would consequently be better to include that in the Bill.

I, too, am troubled by the one-sided approach. We are considering proposed new section 67(4) of the 1984 Act , which says:

''Before issuing a code, or any revision of a code, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities,

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police''—

both of whom have an association—

''and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit.''

By definition, two groups are in the Bill and nobody else. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, those groups are not the only ones involved in the process.

I am a member of the Bar, though I have not practised for 15 years—I am a member of chambers. It strikes me that those who are doing the legal work have an obvious consultative role, but there are other obvious groups, too. As I have argued in many

Committees, one need not necessarily include in primary legislation a full list of people to be consulted, but in that case no one should be named in the Bill: the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities should not be mentioned and the list of people to be consulted should be included in secondary legislation. Obvious groups would include the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, local authorities and magistrates associations, and there are many other perfectly proper groups. The hon. and learned Lady mentioned those who look after the interests of mental health service users, and there are other people in the health service, especially those who look after the vulnerable—whether as a result of mental illness or of physical disability—and bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, who might be included. I support the amendment—it probes why we should include certain groups and not others—and hope that the Minister will consider it.

Of course, the police have an interest, but they are a minority. The general public are the majority, but they are not mentioned at all as a group who are entitled to be consulted. If they are not included, no one should be. I hope that the Minister will accept the philosophy of that argument and agree to table a similar amendment on Report. I am sure that both main Opposition parties, and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), are willing to try to reach an agreement, before Report, on a wording that will command general respect.

The clause makes specific provision for consultation, which, I remind hon. Members, is not a requirement under the current PACE provisions. The current provisions say, in essence, that the Secretary of State must publish a draft and consider representations. That is a rather passive process. We now propose that the Secretary of State should specifically be required to consult. That is a step forward.

Like those who have already spoken, I find it almost inconceivable that there would be circumstances in which the Bar Council and Law Society would not be consulted about changes to the PACE codes or the introduction of new codes. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, it is generally not a good idea to include in primary legislation names of particular organisations, because those organisations sometimes cease to exist—not that I am suggesting for a moment that either of those august bodies may cease to exist. It also creates inflexibility and other organisations ask why their names have not been included in the list.

I would argue that ACPO and police authorities have a particular position, and they are referred to in paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), but I accept the spirit of the point and assure the Committee that where the Law Society and Bar Council have an interest, they will certainly be consulted in almost every circumstance. In fact, I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which they would not be consulted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I am not completely happy because, picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which I also tried to make, the impression is given that PACE exists for the convenience of the police. My recollection is that when PACE was originally introduced by a Conservative Government, the police were, in many respects, none too happy. They considered that it would be onerous and formalise matters in relation to which they preferred the old system of verballing people; there were a host of things that were probably more convenient for them before. I cannot ignore the fact that one of the driving forces behind the desire for change on PACE has been that the police have, properly, pointed out areas in which they want rapid change or would prefer things to be done differently. It is necessary to have a balance.

Because the Bar and solicitors are intimately involved in the way in which PACE operates, there are justifiable grounds for including them in the legislation in the same way as the police have been. I have hinted before that if the Bar has approved a change, it is less likely that its detail will be subject to endless challenges in court. Finding a co-operative way forward has been an extraordinarily successful means of setting ground rules that everybody has been able to observe, thus cutting the time taken by court cases. I hope that the Minister will think further about the matter. In view of his willingness to consider the entirety of the wording of the clause to find out whether it can be rejigged in a way that meets his concerns and the anxieties of other Committee members before Report, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, unless we can improve on what clause 7 offers, particularly in respect of consultation, the matter will undoubtedly return on Report, and again in another place, if we do not sort it out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

This is a very important clause. I would normally vote against it, because it does not contain the safeguards that we have touched on. It does not resolve the issue of who should be consulted about changes and does not address the matter of parliamentary scrutiny of fundamental changes in the arrangements governing procedure between the citizen and the police. I appreciate that the explanatory notes are for guidance and do not have any statutory force, but the description of clause 7 says:

''This clause makes fundamental changes to the process for establishing and amending codes of practice under PACE.''

They are indeed fundamental, and we must not delude ourselves.

The next issue that I want to raise has not been touched on before. I understand that under the proposed procedure there will not have to be drafts. It will be possible for a new change or changes to be laid and to come into operation. It strikes me that, not only for the reason given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, there has to be a process by which

the Government can show what they are thinking of doing. There might be a big issue that will exercise a lot of people. The Government do not always recognise the importance of an issue—the small print often reveals matters that were not initially considered significant but are important for a particular group or person. Holding on to the view that we ought to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, but accepting that we shall come back to whether we can achieve consensus about how to do it effectively, I consider the existing affirmative procedure to be the best option, unless we can find an equally good one.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: a Committee comprises people with an interest who meet for a few hours at most. We make recommendations to the House and decide what is controversial. It is voted on later. If there is a very big issue, we spot it and it is debated in the House. We judge the importance of things and matters can be processed in 10 minutes—five at each end of the building—if there is no controversy.

There is also a question of management. A discipline is placed on the Government, the police and everyone else: they cannot keep knocking on the door saying that they want to make yet more changes. They know that if they have a slot only once a year, or every two, three or five years, they will have to marshal their thoughts. Unless something hugely important comes up, or unless a great lacuna in the system is suddenly revealed by a court ruling, experience should tell them that in five years' time they will need to do something.

I accept that things sometimes need to be brought up to date. However, if we do not force a Division it will not be because we are happy with the clause—we are not—but because of the good will and the spirit of the Minister's response to the previous two points. Might the Government table an amendment, or will they consider a proposal for considering draft codes, as stage one of a process, before changes are made—whether big or small?

I, too, hope that I have not been excessively sweet-talked by the Minister into not opposing the clause. My reservations have been well identified. I fully accept that there may be a problem distinguishing between important and minor changes, but the House has a role to play in that.

I return to the matter of affirmative resolution, because it is important. It is useful, because it allows Members of Parliament and others to ask the wonderful question, why. We have already heard of an example: the Minister will remember that, before Christmas, an amendment was made to legislation that had not yet been brought into force, but no explanation was given at the outset of exactly why that had happened. It simply emerged. I fear that the moment that it becomes easy to amend existing legislation, amendments will start to cascade every time a police officer come across a minor hiccup that he does not like. After all, the police are the ones with the easiest access to the Home Office: they can put pen to paper to say that they would like a change, rapid

consultation is available and they are automatically within the loop provided under clause 7; and if a Government wish to, they can present a fait accompli to the public with absolutely no discussion—although I fully accept that that is not the Minister's intention.

The problem with scrutinising the Government's actions is that a Minister's intention expressed in Committee and what happens when bureaucrats, who are feeling a bit harassed on a Friday afternoon, see the opportunity to have the whole thing done and dusted by the following Tuesday morning are two entirely different things—I have been a Member of the House long enough to realise that, without ministerial intention, it happens quite frequently. Placing orders before Ministers to be signed without scrutiny is one of the easiest things to do. I sat on the Statutory Instruments Committee in the last Parliament, and every week I saw poorly drafted legislation—much of it unintelligible gobbledegook—but the Committee could not question its background.

The PACE code is important; it has worked and it must continue to work. I am mindful of what the Minister is trying to achieve, but the Bill as it stands does not reassure me that that will continue. Can he please come up with something better on Report?

I have some concerns. I echo what has been said about codes of practice being critical as a protection for many of those who become involved with the police—those in police custody or being investigated by the police. I am grateful for the Minister's saying that he will try to think of a formula. I invite him to take into account—I think that we should all do the same—what primarily worried me about the clause: the notion of taking the power, fairly easily, to change the codes of practice when we are in the middle of a major review of those PACE codes. I think that the review was reported to the House in November. Many of the recommendations were not put in the Bill or in the Police Reform Bill. Some of them will inevitably be in a future code of practice. I understand that the intention behind the review is for those changes to be implemented by 2004. I imagine that the changes will cover, among other things, the way in which appropriate adults are appointed and deployed, and the question of intimate searches. The review raised such issues, on which change is needed, but for which a slot in legislation has not yet been found. They are very important issues.

I invite the Minister to ensure that any formula takes into account those major revisions of PACE. I appreciate that as legislation goes through a quick procedure is necessary, so that there is a catch-up of the codes of practice. However, it is slightly presumptuous to take a power that is designed for dealing with that when we are in the middle of a major review of the PACE codes. I hope that any formula agreed can allow for the current review to be completed before any of the changes are implemented. I ask him to link that to the formula that he is searching for, and to try to match those two up.

There is a lot of common ground among us on the problem that we are trying to

address. My hon. and learned Friend was right to draw attention to one of the causes of the pressure, which is the legislation passed in the House. That is why the discipline of being allowed to revise the codes only once every two years would not work. The practitioners on the streets want guidance that reflects the legislation that we pass. It would not be sensible then to impose a rule that says, ''I'm sorry, but you're going to have to wait another two years before we can update the code you have to work with''. There has been criticism of the rate at which the Home Office legislates, but that is how things go.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised a point about a draft. He is correct in that the current wording mentions the publication of a draft. However, on the basis of subsection (4), that would be a bit hard if one were to issue a code. Under the clause, there is for the first time a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult. I find it hard to conceive that a Secretary of State would write a letter saying, ''Dear So-and-so, I am thinking of publishing a new code. What do you think? Let me have your views. Yours sincerely.'' I think that common sense dictates that one would invite people to comment and be consulted on a draft.

Although I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the wording, I think that the spirit of subsection (4) is clear. After all, what is the point of consultation if there is nothing specific to consult on? It would not make sense to write a letter such as the one that I caricatured a moment ago. It would make a lot of sense to consult people on such proposals, for precisely the reasons that my hon. and learned Friend outlined. Such detailed provisions as those under discussion are in some cases sensitive and important. If the consultation is to be meaningful, people must have a chance to look at a draft and to comment on it. I hope that that is helpful, and that the Committee will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.