Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on
enabling the police to release material from body-worn videos in
a timely fashion following an incident.
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests as declared in the
register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the release of material from body-worn videos is a
matter for police forces. To assist the police in taking
decisions on the release of such material, the National Police
Chiefs’ Council issued advice to forces in November last year.
The Government support the police taking a proactive approach to
considering the release of body-worn video to increase
transparency, build public confidence and correct misleading
information that circulates online.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response.
She said that the Government want police forces to be
“proactive”, but the reality is that it is the work of a moment
for a very partial video of a particular incident to be
circulated widely on social media, yet it takes a very long time
for police to release their version of events on the basis of
body-worn video. That undermines confidence in the police and
allows on occasions false rumours to circulate. How proactive
does the Minister expect police forces to be, and does she agree
that such material should be made available within 24 hours
rather than in the rather long term, as happens at the moment?
(Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord that space between online
circulation of video and the police reactively putting the video
online creates a vacuum for speculation and can undermine the
criminal justice process, so I think speed is of the essence. For
that reason, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for asking the
Question.
(Con)
My Lords, on a separate but related issue, in her HMIC report,
Wendy Williams recommended that all forces should record the
entirety of all stop and search encounters by September of this
year and that external scrutiny panels should have access to that
footage. As the use of stop and search has increased, public
confidence in the process is more important than ever. Can my
noble friend the Minister confirm whether police forces across
the country intend to implement these recommendations?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. As always, Wendy
Williams’ report has come up with some very insightful
recommendations. My noble friend will know that the use of
body-worn video during stop and search is an operational decision
for forces. The Home Office supports it as a tool for increasing
transparency and accountability. My right honourable friend the
Home Secretary reinforced that in her speech to the Police
Federation conference early last month when she said that the
Home Office would be
“looking carefully at strengthening the system of local community
scrutiny and the value of body-worn video, because transparency”,
as the noble Lord, , said, “is vital.”
(Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question of my noble friend Lord
Harris, why is it difficult for the police to get their evidence
to court, and why is it a slow process? Is there a technical
reason for the slowness in releasing material from body-worn
camera data? Can the Minister update the House on this?
(Con)
Again, that is a pertinent point. Clearly, every case is
different. Police getting evidence to court may well be
undermined by material that has been released online beforehand,
which may undermine the criminal justice system. A number of
factors have to be considered when police are getting evidence to
court, but I go back to the point made by the noble Lord,
: speed is clearly of the essence not only
in seeking out justice but in improving public confidence and
scrutiny of these issues.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that early
release of material from body-worn videos would play a major role
in preventing certain sections of the media and, indeed,
politicians of a particular mindset, from jumping in too soon and
criticising police action where they have acted appropriately? I
cite the Clapham Common vigil as a first-class example.
(Con)
My noble friend is right that selective release of video can
paint a very different picture from what actually happened. This
point has been made again and again. It is absolutely right that
these things be released quickly and brought forward in a way
that does not undermine the criminal justice system that ensues.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, if there is any possibility of misconduct proceedings
or a prosecution, whether of the police officer or of those
interacting with the officer, witness evidence, perhaps from a
different angle or from before the camera starts to record, may
be important. Witnesses may be influenced by the body-worn video
footage as well as online footage, rather than by what they saw.
What safeguards are needed to ensure that both body-worn video
and online video do not interfere with the course of justice?
(Con)
I think the noble Lord points to the fact that the police need to
make decisions about what happened before the video was started,
after the video was started and what might be put online. These
are all factors that might undermine a criminal justice process,
and I very much agree with his points.
(Lab)
Everyone accepts the need for police accountability, but surely
there is a need to redress the balance as more and more cases
occur of police officers being vilified on social media following
selective clips of their interaction with the public. However,
given that the Minister has just said that this is a matter for
police forces, and that the Government accept it is a real
problem, how are they going to get this changed for the better?
(Con)
Body-worn video is an incredibly useful tool for the police, not
only to bring criminals to justice, ultimately, but to protect
the police against accusations regarding how they treat potential
criminals. That latter factor is very important. Clearly, we make
policy decisions and the police implement them. They are
operationally independent of us and it is for them to issue those
decisions. Of course, the National Police Chiefs Council’s advice
on the whole framework of their use is very important.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, given the success of body-worn cameras in helping to
de-escalate matters and providing evidence where a crime has been
committed, does the Minister think that the time has come for all
police officers to wear body-worn cameras?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, but we have to be careful
here. The use of body-worn video has to be lawful, necessary and
proportionate, and I think that is why the call for its use in
stop and search has been made. Its use generally has to be
incident specific. I take the point that my noble friend makes,
but it is probably not useful or advisable in all circumstances.
(GP)
According to a recent report, some videos showed that police
officers were poor at communicating and lacked patience and
de-escalation skills. Is it possible that the pressure on the
police from 11 years of swingeing Tory cuts to their budgets and
numbers is responsible for that sort of pressure? Their numbers
are still not back to pre-Conservative Government levels of 11
years ago.
(Con)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, she will not be surprised
to know. She can surely acknowledge that our efforts to enlist an
extra 20,000 police officers are all to the good in fighting
crime.
(Lab Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that Police Scotland started a trial of
body-worn video on 1 June? Will she ensure that the experience in
England is passed on to Police Scotland?
(Con)
Indeed; our relationship with the devolved authorities is always
one of learning from each other and passing on examples of good
practice.
