The arresting case against red tape is not all it seems

Rank-and-file officers complain about bureaucracy ÿ but others argue that it is needed to prevent more miscarriages of justice

David Blunkett promised yesterday to scythe through police station bureaucracy to free up thousands of officers and renew the public's faith in the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

But the Home Secretary's pledge to do away with what he described as "cumbersome procedures" glossed over the fact that these very measures had once been introduced with the intention of restoring trust in the same justice system.

While the police rank and file were enthusiastic yesterday about moves to release them from requirements that had kept them off the beat, senior officers were more cautious.

Kevin Morris, the president of the Police Superintendents' Association, said: "We need to understand why the public or sections of the public have lost confidence in us, and why others have decided they protection from our practices so that they need to introduce procedural changes or legislation."

At the heart of the debate over the balance between bureaucracy and accountability is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984, which lays down procedures for officers when making arrests.

The act is widely seen as being responsible for cutting the number of miscarriages of justice by demanding safeguards that protect the suspect.

Before the 1984 Act, there were no requirements for tape-recorded interviews, and rogue officers perfected the art of "verballing", where they made up a confession that had never been given. The practice was uncovered only when scientists came before the courts to testify that ESDA tests, capable of determining whether statements had been changed, showed that pages of interview notes had been fabricated.

Civil libertarians at first opposed the Act on the ground that it extended police powers by allowing detention for 96 hours instead of the previous 48.

But John Wadham, the director of the human rights group Liberty, said the wider value of the legislation had since become obvious. "It has been one of those measures which has been very useful in ensuring that the rules are clear and police obey the rules. There have been less miscarriages of justice post-PACE."

Mr Wadham added that some of the procedural requirements had also helped police officers, for instance by protecting them against false accusations of abuse.

The problem with PACE, according to the Home Office, is that it has grown by 25 per cent, by a succession of amendments to incorporate the introduction of related legislation, such as changes to race laws.

The Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe seized on the issue while she was shadow Home Secretary, after Labour came to power in 1997.

She called for the amount of police paperwork to be reduced drastically and embraced the American idea of "cops in shops", which allows officers to write up reports in shops and offices rather than having to return to their police stations. Last night she said: "There is a whole industry around bureaucracy. We have just gone potty. Every single thing has to be written down."

When Mr Blunkett was appointed Home Secretary a year ago he immediately found himself under great pressure over a perceived shortfall in police numbers. Falling crime figures could not compete with tabloid headlines suggesting a country going to the dogs and calling repeatedly for "more bobbies on the beat". But as Labour threw money at the problem, officials became aware that one new officer did not mean one new officer patrolling the streets.

A Home Office research project published in November found that, typically, an officer would spend only 17 per cent of a working day on patrol. And only 1 per cent was devoted to foot patrol with the restdone in a vehicle. By contrast, 43 per cent of the police day was spent in the station, much of it filling out forms. (The remaining 40 per cent was spent on attending incidents, community work and other activities).

Mr Blunkett, who had swiftly appointed the former chief inspector of constabulary Sir David O'Dowd to head a new "Policing Bureaucracy" taskforce, was disturbed to learn that officers could spend eight hours processing a single arrest. He also locked horns with the Police Federation by cutting overtime pay and reducing unnecessary sick leave.

The federation's publicity machine, which was to claim a victory later in forcing the Home Secretary to back down over overtime cuts, grew increasingly vociferous about the obstacles to itsmembers' fight against crime.

Not everyone is convinced by these protests. One commentator observed that inefficiency was not easily recorded in monitoring an officer's daily routine. Time spent in the station might be lengthened by a preference for a cup of coffee rather than a return to the rainy streets, it was suggested. In general, however, the consensus was that the bureaucratic burden had become counterproductive.

The issue came to a head recently when Mr Blunkett, in trying to reassure ethnic minority communities, announced that all police stops and searches were to be recorded. The prospect of yet more paperwork was received with howls of protest from police officers. Supt Morris said: "The public in the street must have faith in the police. But the requirement to record all stops is treating the rash and not the underlying problem."

Supt Morris said it was crucial that officers displayed fairness and dignity, irrespective of how they recorded the search. He called for thoughtful changes to PACE which, though well-intentioned, had caused a "bureaucratic nightmare ... in some instances".

Mr Wadham is reassured that the attitudes of senior officers to human rights have changed significantly since the days of miscarriages of justice such as those of the the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. "Twenty years ago, Liberty and the police were at daggers drawn but now I go off to training courses to teach senior officers what human rights are," Mr Wadham said.

The task for the police service will be to ensure that any reduction in bureaucratic procedures does not allow corners to be cut by junior officers.

Sir David is due to report to the Home Secretary in July. Mr Blunkett said yesterday that the interim findings supported using more technology to allow officers to file reports without returning from patrol; standardising form-filling; and reducing the requirements of officers to attend courts.

"I am resolved to support officers to do the job they were trained to do, fighting crime rather than [being] tied up in red tape," Mr Blunkett said.