6.8 pm
Police and Justice Bill
6:15 pm
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
The hon. Lady is right to say that the amendment covers some of the ground that we have already discussed. The aim of granting bail is to enable the person to be released from custody. At times during this debate, we have lost sight of that.
Under section 37(2) or (7)(b) to PACE, bail is granted pending the outcome of further police inquiries prior to a decision to charge or refer to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on a charge. Paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Bill before us amends PACE to enable the normal conditions of bail, which currently can be attached to bail that is granted pending the decision of the CPS to charge or refer, to be attached to the other categories of bail. As I have said, that is aimed at raising the ability and confidence of the police to enable people to be released from custody for a period sufficient to enable the necessary further inquiries to be completed.
The hon. Lady put forward the idea that the police might use that as a punitive end in itself, or as a method for simply never bringing a charge. That would be an inappropriate use of police powers and therefore would be subject to challenge should a case come to court, and certainly subject to appeal in the magistrates court. There are safeguards in the Bill that would allow people to apply to the custody sergeant to have those conditions re-examined and varied, so I feel that the hon. Lady has reached a conclusion that is not justified by the provisions in the Bill. She is speculating that the police, with some kind of vindictive attitude or nefarious motive, would seek to use those powers inappropriately and unlawfully. The powers are there to be used in a proportionate way, and the conditions have to be necessary. The picture that she painted is extreme and not one in which police officers would be involved. Clearly, there are general provisions to challenge police officers’ actions should they act unlawfully.
The hon. Lady’s amendment would impose on the system a new and extensive bureaucracy, and require police and magistrates to review conditions even when the person who is subject to those conditions has not sought to change or vary them, or asked for them to be reviewed. It is difficult to see how an effective review could be carried out without contacting that person on virtually every day of their conditional bail to see whether those conditions are still appropriate and proportionate. Again, that would involve extensive bureaucracy, and would take officers off the front line so that they could go and find those people to check their conditions. The amendment is poorly thought out.
The hon. Lady talks about a maximum period of 96 hours. That is arbitrary, and I see no evidence to suggest that four days is the period for which bail conditions can normally be sustained. If bail conditions are issued at the custody station, in the normal course of events, people can be on bail for a significant time. I see no evidence whatever to suggest that the conditions set out in paragraph 6 would be more onerous than those that would normally apply, or that four days is the maximum period for which they should be sustained.
The Bill contains safeguards. I said in the circular that has been issued that street bail is not expected to last for a period longer than six weeks. In most cases, a person will answer to their bail much sooner. We are looking at a fairly short period in which people will have conditions so that while they are on the streets, they are not reoffending or interfering with witnesses. That will ensure that the investigation into the offence can proceed properly and that further police inquiries can be carried out while that person is on conditional bail.
After four to six weeks that person will answer to the bail and the matter will be dealt with. I really feel that the hon. Lady is painting a picture and imputing to the police service motives that it would not accept. She is suggesting that it would misuse those powers in a punitive and unlawful way. She is wrong to set out that scenario, so I ask her to consider withdrawing the amendment. If not, I ask the Committee to oppose it.