Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of
Codes C, D and H) Order 2016 - Motion to Approve
– in the House of Lords at 4:30 pm on 19th January
2017.
Baroness
Williams of Trafford The Minister of State, Home Department
The
main revision to PACE Code C is to expressly permit the use of live-link
communications technology for interpreters. The changes enable interpretation
services to be provided by interpreters based at remote locations and allow
access to be shared by forces throughout England and Wales. This will avoid
interpreters having to travel to individual police stations, and improve the
availability of interpreters for all languages. By reducing delays in the
investigation, it will enable a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to
the administration of justice. The revisions include safeguards for suspects to
ensure, as far as practicable, that the fairness of proceedings are not
prejudiced by the interpreter not being physically present with the suspect.
The provisions therefore require the interpreter’s physical presence unless
specified conditions are satisfied and allow live-link interpretation.
Lord Kennedy
of Southwark Shadow Spokesperson (Housing), Opposition Whip (Lords), Shadow
Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government), Shadow Spokesperson (Home
Affairs)
I
have a number of questions to ask the Minister and hope that she will be able
to answer me today—but, if she cannot, I will of course be very happy for her
to write me. I turn first to Code C and the ability to permit the use of
live-link communication technology for interpreters. This will allow for
interpreters to be based at remote locations and for their services to be used
by a number of police forces without the need for travel. I can see how this
will help the police by speeding up their investigations. Can the noble
Baroness confirm whether this facility will be used only in respect of
suspects, or will the police be making use of it in respect of witnesses? Is
that the intention of the change? Is it envisaged by the department that this
will become the norm; will it be used on only limited occasions; or is it
somewhere between the two? How will the test of fairness to the suspect be
assessed, and what role will there be for the suspect’s solicitor in making
representations on the appropriateness of the use of remote translation
services?
