Schedule 4 - Police bail
Police and Justice Bill
5:15 pm
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.