Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 135, in schedule 4, page 75, line 10, after first ‘a’, insert ‘senior’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 136, in schedule 4, page 75, line 25, at end insert—

‘(4A)In this section “senior constable” means a constable designated as a senior constable by the Chief Officer of the force.’

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

We now come to the part of the Bill that extends the concept of street bail, which was introduced in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I have considerable concerns, which I expressed briefly on Second Reading, about the provisions and how they will operate. I have therefore tabled amendments, which I believe will be complementary to those that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, to suggest some moderation in the operation of those provisions.

What I have to say is not to be taken as a challenge to the concept of street bail, which I recognise as valuable. Where police officers arrest a suspect but for some reason find it difficult to fulfil their statutory obligation to take them straight to a police station, street bail allows them to impose the condition that they report to a police station at a later stage. We know from a report published in 2001 by the PA Consulting Group that the average time taken to process an arrest is three and a half hours. Given the potential difficulties for police officers, particularly early on in their shifts or when they have to deal with a large number of offenders, it makes sense for them to have the discretion to require people to report to a police station at a later stage.

However, the Bill goes considerably further by enabling police officers to attach a wider range of conditions to street bail than simply having to report to a police station. Those conditions include not   committing an offence, not interfering with witnesses and not obstructing the course of justice. There is also a condition to protect the person themselves. Although those measures sound perfectly reasonable, the problem is that, in effect, custodial conditions are potentially to be imposed by police officers without the supervision of the courts. The provisions represent a significant shift away from a system in which the courts properly exercise such functions to one in which individual police officers do so. They are potentially the extension of a form of summary justice.

Such conditions could be imposed for lengthy periods of time, despite the fact that the offender had not been charged with any crime. I cannot see any measure in the schedule that will put time limits on those conditions. The conditions could include curfews, tagging and restrictions on whom a person can meet and speak to, so they are potentially onerous penal conditions. The role of the independent custody sergeant, as a semi-independent arbiter of bail conditions—a role that is important in the current process of granting bail at police stations—is effectively eliminated in such cases. The provision has given rise to worry outside the House not least on the part of Liberty, which said:

“It is unreasonable to impose conditions on a person’s freedom, by means of bail conditions, before there is even considered to be sufficient evidence to prosecute in respect of offences they may never be charged with and before the person knows the nature of the case against them.”

We shall come shortly to amendments that will deal with that worry by bringing the provisions of the extension of street bail under the auspices of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so I shall not discuss them now. That would be one way in which to deal with the extension of power. My amendments are not mutually exclusive; they have the same objective. They propose an additional way in which to moderate the use of the sweeping additional police power. Under amendment No. 135, the power to confer street bail and set the conditions should be exercisable only by a “senior” constable. Amendment No. 136 defines a senior constable who is designated as such

“by the Chief Officer of the force.”

In part, the amendment is probing, because I am not sure of the extent to which the office of senior constable may or may not exist under current legislation. I do not believe that it does, but we are moving to a criminal justice system where, increasingly, such discretion will be given to police officers. We are moving to a remarkable extension of summary justice through the Bill and through other measures that form part of the Government’s respect agenda. We must bear in mind the Prime Minister’s proposal to bypass the court system and to speed up the process of justice. All such matters give rise to serious issues about whether such discretion should be exercised by relatively inexperienced police officers.

When punitive conditions can be set by police officers, not only do they need to be subject to proper constitutional checks and safeguards, but those powers should be exercised under supervision and by police officers with more experience than a recent trainee graduate. That view is shared broadly by   others. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the concept of street bail. In 2002, the Home Affairs Select Committee said:

“We believe that the custody sergeant is an officer with an appropriate level of experience for the responsibility of imposing bail conditions before charge because, unlike detention, conditional bail requires the consent of the prospective defendant.”

The Police Federation said that, while it welcomes the decision to extend street bail, police officers should still be subject to the scrutiny of a police sergeant, which is important to ensure integrity and proportionality. The body that represents police officers is expressing some worry about the extension of the discretionary power that will be given to police officers.

Other countries have the position of senior constable. For example, in the Australian federal police, the position requires six years’ service in community policing. In New Zealand, it requires 14 years’ service. The Tasmanian state police have grades of constables: for example, first-class constable first grade and first-class constable second grade. That sounds wonderfully old-fashioned in many respects. The concept that there should be constables in whom powers, which are not regarded as appropriate for use by all police officers, are vested is important.

I resisted the temptation in amendment No. 136 to designate a senior constable by reference to their length of service, because that is more a matter of judgment on the part of chief officers as to whether an individual has the maturity as well as the experience to fulfil that particular role. We can debate that. This Committee, or a future one considering a similar proposal might judge that a statutory term of experience is necessary. I am open to such a suggestion.

My alternative is in line with the principle that I have been trying to set out during our deliberations: where possible, chief officers should have discretion over these matters. I propose that chief officers could make the judgment. It is possible that relatively young officers or those who have spent relatively little time on the beat might nevertheless be of a calibre, and have sufficient maturity to be able to exercise the powers; it is not just a matter of experience. I hope that there will be work force reform that enables police officers to be recruited who are not necessarily at the young age of those who are currently being recruited.

I hope that the Minister will respond by addressing my substantive concern about the operation of these powers and by recognising that we do not seek to oppose wholesale their exercise. There is an important debate to be had about the extension of summary justice and the need to try to ensure that police officers have immediate powers to deal with things such as antisocial behaviour and exercise their role on the streets appropriately. If the police are to have these powers, it is important that they are balanced properly and that the public’s confidence in the system is maintained.

My view about this matter was reinforced when I met a constituent last week. He is a highly respectable senior businessman who encountered some youths in an unpleasant way in a local car park. Some   disagreement resulted. The youths later claimed that he scratched their car when passing it, which he denies. As a consequence, the police officers visited him at his home. A relatively young police officer offered him the alternatives of admitting guilt and being given a fixed penalty notice or going to a police station some distance away and having to be dealt with there. He chose the fixed penalty notice route but felt that the police officer was not exercising his discretion in a particularly sensible way.

I am concerned that, if we give these sweeping additional powers to police officers who do not have the experience to exercise them—leaving aside the civil liberties implications of what they are doing—it will lead to an undermining of the relationship between the police and the communities that they serve. The fact that the Police Federation has expressed concern about the supervision of the powers should send a strong warning message about whether we are doing the right thing by extending street bail conditions in this way. I hope that these amendments and the concept of the introduction of a senior constable will be taken seriously by the Minister.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I support the amendment. Creating the concept of a senior constable would be helpful in the context of their experience and knowledge as a police constable—my hon. Friend used the word “maturity”—reassuring the public that the powers would be used effectively and judiciously. That concept would also allow there to be separate training modules and the support that would come from that. The amendment is sufficiently widely drawn to allow for that flexibility, because it talks about a senior constable being designated by the chief officer of the force.

The chief officer could designate that relevant senior constables had to complete a period of training or to gain specific experience to ensure that they were able to use the additional powers sought under the Bill fairly and reasonably. I can envisage circumstances where people would rush into attaching quite onerous or stringent bail conditions. In some ways, that ability is hemmed in by restrictions under PACE, but again the question is—I suppose that this will be my phrase for the day—what the direction of travel is and where the measure is taking policing powers.

We are talking about summary justice, taking much of the administration of justice away from the courts and giving it directly to police officers. That places a heavy burden and responsibility on them. It must be paired with ensuring that there are sufficient checks and balances so that powers are not misused. I am not saying that that would in any way be the case but, in other countries, the powers are tilted more heavily towards the police and could be misused.

It is possible to make complaints about the way in which the police handle things, and it is right that we have a robust approach to investigating complaints where the police may have exceeded or not used their powers appropriately. That is key to ensuring that powers are not abused. If we are moving towards the   police having a much greater ability to exercise powers directly, without direct judicial scrutiny or independent scrutiny of their actions, there needs to be a sufficiently robust challenging mechanism, whether it be through an investigation if complaints are made, or otherwise.

I have concerns about going down the road of summary justice. There must be checks and balances so that, if there is inappropriate use of powers and—dare I say it—corruption, those matters will be addressed properly, efficiently and effectively. Checks must be in place to ensure that such situations are picked up quickly and that the officers involved are dealt with quickly, and to provide assurance to the public.

I say that because giving police officers much stronger powers changes the nature of policing. I am referring to the trust that must exist in the police, given the manner in which policing is, and has always been, undertaken in this country. We have policing by consent. We must keep that at the forefront of our minds when straying down the road of summary justice and increasing police direct powers without oversight. We have to ensure that the public are willing always to trust the police to use their powers in the interest of justice, which is what this is all about.

Although I give a cautious welcome to the proposals, which I hope will make the operation of police bail more effective and efficient, it is important that there should be checks and balances. That is why I support the amendment, which seeks to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny, so that we can be sure that police constables who exercise the police bail powers do so properly, and have the experience, maturity and training to use the powers to the intended effect.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

Earlier, the Minister reassured the Committee that PCSOs dealing with truant children would have adequate training. The provision that amendment No. 135 seeks to amend also concerns young children. In paragraph 2 of schedule 4, new subsection (3B) states that where a constable—my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs argues that, if amendment No. 135 were to be adopted, it would be a senior constable—

“releases a person on bail under subsection (1) the constable may impose, as conditions of the bail, such requirements as appear to the constable—”

Presumably, that would again change to senior constable—

“to be necessary ... for the person’s own protection or, if the person is under the age of 17, for the person’s own welfare or in the person’s own interests.”

I guess we are not allowed to say child, but that is what we are talking about if the person is under 17.

The problem is that, because of the way in which the measure is drafted, it sounds as though that could be any constable. I suspect that the Minister will reassure me that it cannot, and that it must be a constable specially trained in dealing with young people under the age of 17—I hope that she will say that, anyway. However, it is not just that that concerns me. Under   new subsection (3B)(a), (b) and (c), important judgments have to be made by the senior officer or, as the schedule is drafted, the constable. That constable will have to judge whether the person will

“interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person”,

will have

“to secure that the person surrenders to custody”,

and that he

“does not commit an offence while on bail”.

To do all that, he will have to be a veritable Judge Deed, yet we hear that he is to be an ordinary constable. My hon. Friend has shown considerable foresight in suggesting that it should be a senior constable. Amendment No. 136 gives power to the local chief officer to make the decision about what denotes a senior constable. What is a senior constable? Is it a sergeant, an ordinary constable who has 10 or 15 years’ experience, an ordinary constable who has had training in a particular area, or an officer of a particular rank?

Earlier, we argued that the Bill was too tightly drafted. In this instance, it has been too loosely drafted. It does not give a clear indication of the skills, qualities, training or seniority that a constable should have if he is to make those important decisions. I hope that the Minister will accept that they are important decisions—we are discussing the welfare of children under the age of 17. Also, when we discuss witness interference, we are talking about the integrity of the justice system. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that a constable will be appointed to that important role only if he or she has been clearly designated by the chief constable. If amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are rejected, what mechanisms will be in place to allow a chief constable to ensure that only trained and experienced police officers make the important decisions regarding who should be put on bail?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 highlight some serious and significant issues. I do not pretend that these are not matters of public concern. They are certainly matters of concern to the police service. The provisions are part of a genuine attempt to ensure that the system works as quickly and effectively as it can. At the same time, we must retain the important emphasis on human rights and on the liberty of individuals.

This requirement, together with some of the other provisions in the Bill, put the focus on how we get the right balance between acknowledging the rights of people who are subject to inquiries about their behaviour, but have not been charged with offences, and protecting the community from the possibility of those people carrying out further offences or, indeed, interfering with witnesses while on bail. What conditions should those people be subjected to because of their behaviour? This is a serious debate about striking the right balance, ensuring that there are safeguards in place for those people who have genuine rights and, at the same time, protecting the community.

We must ensure also that the police do not become bogged down in bureaucracy. The police service must have a system that allows it to maximise the time that it can spend protecting the public on the front line. Sometimes, these issues cause an inevitable internal tension between establishing a rigorous system that protects people’s rights and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Some bureaucracy is necessary because the police service has the power to interfere with people’s liberty. Time and again, I make the point that not all bureaucracy is bad. In this country, bureaucracy often sustains our democratic principles. However, I am keen to minimise bureaucracy where possible, and I respond to amendments Nos. 135 and 136 in that spirit.

The term “senior constable” is not defined in our law. It may apply in other jurisdictions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs will know that we are intent on work force reform. We are considering the creation of an enhanced constable grade, which would allow for extra responsibilities in the neighbourhood policing team. However, those negotiations are at a very early stage.

Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 do not state whether street bail could be granted by more senior ranks than a senior constable. Clearly, superintendents, sergeants and inspectors should exercise those powers as well. However, the amendments go to the heart of some of the provisions for street bail. The purpose of introducing conditions on street bail is to give police officers the confidence legitimately to release people rather than keep them in custody. Therefore, the idea is to strengthen bail conditions so that people do not have to be kept in custody unnecessarily. Far from the measure being an extra incursion into people’s rights, it will minimise the amount of time that people spend in full custody. Therefore, providing that street bail is subject to a framework of conditions that gives police officers sufficient confidence to let people out of custody without the fear of them re-offending or interfering with witnesses, it will enhance people’s rights by allowing them to be in the community.

This is not simply about giving the police more powers; it is acknowledging that most people would like their time in custody to be minimised. Street bail, subject to conditions, will achieve that.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

The use of detention is strictly controlled by the conditions that dictate the amount of time that a person can be held before he or she must come before a court. There do not appear to be any time restrictions in the conditions for the extension of street bail. Can the Minister square that off? I have articulated the need for scrutiny and review. Given that the measure is time-unlimited as far as I can see, no provision appears to have been made for oversight.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are provisions for supervision and monitoring. People will be given a record of their conditions. Monitoring will take place to ensure particularly that the powers are not being used on the basis of stereotyping against   a particular group and that they are exercised reasonably and proportionately to what the officers are trying to achieve.

Circular 61/2003—there is always a Home Office circular—was issued when the original provisions for street bail were brought in. According to the circular, before an officer issues street bail, he must consider the seriousness of the offence, the views of the victim, the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the investigation. The guidance suggests that officers should not apply it to serious offences, which are a matter for bail at the police station rather than on the street, and requires them to have particular regard to offences involving juvenile offenders and to be aware that, as the hon. Member for Lichfield said, particular considerations sometimes come into play regarding young people. It might be more appropriate to issue that kind of bail at the police station rather than on the street.

Street bail gives officers on the street the power to deal with low-level offences there and then rather than taking people back to the police station, keeping them in custody, giving them conditional bail and letting them go about their business. Both sides benefit from street bail.

The requirement for a senior constable worries me. If an ordinary constable came across somebody committing a low-level crime—shoplifting, vandalism, graffiti or the like—they would have to wait for a senior constable to come before they could issue street bail. That could lead to an increase in bureaucracy. The person being detained would have to spend longer waiting, or would have to go back to the police station to be processed for police bail at the custody centre. That would take officers off the front line, and none of us wants that. We want to maximise their time out there. Street bail is a useful power provided that it is used properly and proportionately and is aimed at low-level offences that require an immediate and proportionate response.

There is a series of safeguards on the way in which street bail is processed. If the person does not agree with the conditions proposed, they can appeal against them to the custody officer at the police station and, if necessary, have a further appeal to the magistrates court. The system has checks and balances. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs moved his amendments with a proper regard for ensuring that the powers are not exercised arbitrarily or by people without proper training, and I share that concern.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister has been quite persuasive in her arguments for street bail. Does she accept that extra training may be needed, or do police officers already have the skills to take on the role? If not, how would the training be given?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I hate to say it, but the hon. Gentleman is almost reading my mind, which causes me some concern. I was just about to come to training. Of course we will expect officers exercising such powers to be properly trained. We expect that with any powers   that the police are given. They have extensive training, and we will expect them to be properly trained in those powers.

Tagging is being thought of as a condition. It is quite a serious step to take, and we shall issue guidance saying that tagging should be applied as a condition only at the police station. That is probably the right balance. The subject caused me a little concern when it was raised. The very requirement to apply tagging implies that the nature of the offence would not meet the criteria set out in our circular, which was about low-level offending. If we took steps to implement electronic tagging, that would clearly happen at the station.

I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman put forward his amendments, but there is no senior constable status. I hope that he agrees that there are sufficient safeguards in the system, and on that basis I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I am not sure that I accept that there are sufficient safeguards in the system, but perhaps we can discuss that under the next set of amendments, which will deal with that issue rather more specifically.

To give one example of the difference that the proposal in the Bill will make, if a suspect were granted street bail, he or she would not have a chance to consult a lawyer or receive any advice about whether to accept the conditions. The Minister says that that person will have a right of appeal. That is very different from a situation in which bail might be granted in a police station. It worries me that much of what the Minister said related to guidance that would be issued—there will be guidance to say that the provisions should be used only in relation to low-level antisocial behaviour and so on, and now there is to be guidance saying that the provisions should not be used in relation to tagging. I welcome the fact that that is the Government’s view, and that certainly deals with one of our concerns, but such provisions should probably be written into the Bill.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

One other need that must be met if the matter is to be dealt with properly, aside from ensuring that power is not overused, relates to the Minister’s comment about ensuring that we do not unnecessarily detain. The power should be used effectively, with officers knowing when to take someone to the police station and detain them properly, rather than just giving them street bail with a condition attached to it. That way, there can be the security and safety that we all want for the public.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend; the danger with the new measures, of course, is that it becomes the easier option for police officers, with fewer checks and safeguards than existing measures for the granting of bail at a police station. That is precisely the concern, and we will come to that.

I accept that there is no such office as senior constable, and it would be difficult to write one into the Bill, but I hope that, under the work force   modernisation to which the Minister referred, she will consider whether what we propose is wise. We will certainly be considering our own ideas for working up the creation of the designated rank of senior police constable.

What with the extension of summary justice in a number of other respects—we will come to them later, in relation to conditional cautions—my proposal is potentially very good, and would instil public confidence. I am anxious that, when the proposal is introduced by the Government in a year or two, we all remember that we heard it here first. Indeed, I suggested a respect agenda two years ago, and look what happened to that. That is not something to which I normally admit, but I feel moved to do so at this moment.

As we are about to discuss amendments suggesting further checks and safeguards for the operation of the revised conditions for street bail, and given the spirit in which the Minister responded to my amendment, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in schedule 4, page 75, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—

‘(b)to secure that the person attends at a police station.’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in schedule 4, page 75, line 25, at end insert—

‘(5)Conditions of the bail imposed under subsection (3B) shall expire—

(a)at the time at which the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody, or

(b)72 hours from the time at which the person was released on bail, whichever is the earlier.’.

No. 9, in schedule 4, page 76, line 13, leave out from ‘necessary’ to ‘, and’ in line 14 and insert

‘to secure that the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody.’.

No. 10, in schedule 4, page 77, line 17, leave out

‘for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 30A(3B)’

and insert

‘to secure that the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody.’.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are about getting the balance right between giving the public confidence that low-level and antisocial crime will be dealt with swiftly and effectively and issues of human rights and civil liberties. It is a form of summary justice and moves towards presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Those are our difficulties. Street bail can be an excellent tool in the police officer’s box, but as the Bill is presently drafted a constable could impose quite a range of conditions on that bail. Those conditions are at the officer’s discretion. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs tried to put some seniority into that decision-making process. Although we think that the power will be useful in certain circumstances, we are troubled by its open-ended nature. The   amendments seek to address twin concerns: the level of conditions that can be applied and the length of time for which they can be imposed.

The amendments first specify that the conditions set on bail will expire when the person presents himself at a police station or surrenders to custody, or three days from the time at which the person was released on bail, whichever is the earlier. They will also the restrict the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on street bail. The concern is to get the balance right. As drafted, the paragraph could lead to a misuse of the power or result in unintended consequences. Conditions such as tagging, curfew or a restriction on whom a person can speak to or meet will be imposed with no absolute time limit. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to liberty, and that severe restriction on liberty would become worrisome without a time limit. Conditional street bail could theoretically be used as a general, long-lasting preventive measure. If no time limit is ever brought into play, there is no end in sight.

Street bail is serious, not a casual act, and it is important to bear in mind that there could be serious consequences. While it can be immensely beneficial and effective, our concern is to ensure that it is not overly punitive. We seek reassurance from the Minister that the safeguards that apply to an individual in a police station or in custody will not be discarded when bail is granted elsewhere. The rights should be the same. Will a person released under street bail be able to call a lawyer before the constable imposes conditions on them? As has been mentioned, when street bail is granted, the officer responsible for deciding on the conditions will be the arresting or investigating officer and therefore not impartial in the imposition of conditions. The Minister said that the officer would be trained to understand what conditions would be appropriate. Nevertheless, an arresting officer is not impartial; normally anything punitive is dispensed with in the judicial system rather than through a police officer. When bail is granted in a police station, the custody sergeant, who is independent of the investigation under way, performs the semi-judicial role of deciding what conditions are justified. He or she has specialist expert training in those matters.

As the Bill stands, those safeguards will not be present when street bail is imposed. Will the Minister consider introducing the changes suggested, whether in the form of our amendments or later as Government amendments? They are probing amendments intended to encourage her to do so. I hope that she can see that it is unsatisfactory to provide such an open-ended position on street bail as the Bill contains, as it might lead to abuse of power and unintended consequences.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), because her amendments would remove the ability of the police to attach conditions to street bail, other than to attend a police   station. There would also be a maximum period for which conditions could be applied to street bail of 72 hours.

That would defeat two key elements of the clause. The first is to minimise the ability of the bailed person to offend further or cause further harm. One reason why we have set out the conditions in paragraph 2(3B) is precisely that we want conditions that can affect people’s behaviour so that they are less likely to reoffend and interfere with witnesses. The hon. Lady’s amendments would allow only the condition of simply turning up at the police station. That would defeat part of our very reason for introducing the provisions.

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that it is important to protect the public, and to get the balance right between the needs of the individual who is subject to the bail and the needs of the wider community. That is why we are introducing the ability to make these conditions, and her amendments would defeat that.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister accept that there should be a time limit on those conditions?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

No, I do not think it is right to include a time limit in the Bill. Clearly, it is important that our judicial and police systems work as quickly as possible and are as effective as they can be. The safeguards that are in the system that allow for a person to appeal first to the police against any conditions imposed and then to the magistrates court are sufficient. I would not like an arbitrary time limit to be placed on the street bail provisions.

It is clearly important for our police service to be able to get cases moving along as quickly as possible, and to make sure that cases are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and that charging decisions are made as quickly as possible. However, one of the purposes of street bail is to allow people to be released on bail, rather than being kept in custody while further inquiries are made and the case referred to the CPS. It is often in the interests of the individual to be given bail. If they can be granted bail only because that the police are confident that the conditions are sufficient to protect the community, it is in the interests of the person to whom bail is been granted to have the conditions, because one of the results of not having them could be that they were kept in custody.

I ask the hon. Lady to think about that balance. If it is in a police officer’s mind that the only thing they can do with a certain person is remand them in custody because they do not have the ability to give them conditions on their bail that give them the security that they are protecting the community, they are more likely to exercise their discretion by putting somebody in custody, rather than letting them out on bail. I hope she accepts that.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I do accept that bail can be an effective tool and can be beneficial to the person who is being street bailed, but my real concern is that it is open-ended. We will have to disagree about the issue of a time limit, and my proposal was not an arbitrary time limit. In my view, a time limit would be beneficial and a safeguard against the misuse or abuse of what is   a very useful power. We want to support the Government, but I am trying to encourage them to come a little way towards us.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I have confirmed to the hon. Lady that there are safeguards in the system in respect of the use of these powers. There will be monitoring, and there will be supervision by senior officers.

The hon. Lady made a point about whether it should be the arresting officer who decides on conditions. It is important that arresting officers are involved because they know what happened and will probably be in a good position to take on board the views of victims, which is important, and to take a view on whether street bail should be granted. They will be aware of the circumstances of the offence and how the investigation needs to proceed. I would not like to see some fairly arbitrary decision made about conditions that is not connected to the circumstances around the arrest. It is important that the arresting officer has an input into those conditions. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s view that that process should be entirely separate.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I am interested in that last point. Obviously, if bail is granted at a police station, the custody sergeant has an independent, quasi-judicial role. I now hear the Minister stressing the need for the investigating officer to have much more of a say. Does that mean that bail from police stations will also be reviewed so that it reflects that? It seems to undermine the quasi-judicial nature of the custody sergeant at the police station, if I follow her argument correctly.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I have no proposals in this legislation to review the way in which bail is administered in that regard, but it is important. When we come to conditional cautions, we will come again to the appropriate division of decision making between arresting officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is important that the person who is aware of the circumstances is involved in the decision making, and that is why our circular talks about taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the views of the victim. It is important to know whether the victim is content that such conditions should be in place. That makes the decision-making process more real. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is important that there is a connection. I believe that safeguards are sufficient.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Am I right that it could be the singular responsibility of the arresting officer to make decisions about conditions?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Yes.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel & South Downs, Conservative)

I listened with particular concern to what the Minister said in rejecting the suggestion that there should be a time limit on the operation of the conditions, which was made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. It seems extraordinary that   it would be theoretically possible for a person to have such a restriction placed on them in perpetuity, with no provision for formal review.

The Minister relied on the fact that there would be supervision of the proposals and that the individual concerned could appeal to a magistrate, and she described time limits as arbitrary. We have so-called arbitrary time limits in relation to all aspects of our criminal justice system, particularly the penal system. Time limits prevent people from being detained in police stations beyond a certain time, and so on. I wonder at the extent to which the provisions are even compatible with the human rights—

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

Order. I think that the Minister may have got the drift of that rather long intervention.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I have said on several occasions that there will be proper supervision of the way in which the powers are exercised, in relation not only to the power to grant street bail but to the conditions attached, to ensure that they are necessary and proportionate. There will be checks and balances within the system to ensure that the powers are not exercised arbitrarily and, in particular, that they are not exercised in relation to specific stereotypes. The fear expressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the powers would be used as a convenient way to deal with perceived rather than real problems will be monitored through the system.

The circular that I have mentioned, which has already been issued, suggests that street bail should be for as short a time as possible, and states that we should look to a maximum of four to six weeks.