| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: Can the Minister elaborate on the position of a responsible adult? I understand that it is almost impossible that in all circumstances a responsible adult can be present when a person is being granted street bail, and the Government state that a responsible adult should be informed as soon as is practicable. Do the Government envisage that a constable would have power to alter the bail conditions, following representations by a responsible adult, because sometimes young people cannot understand the conditions, whereas a responsible adult may be able to help further?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before I give a detailed response, perhaps I may say that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is absolutely right about the possible benefits, both to the officer in dealing with these matters expeditiously and properly, and to the person who is stopped. It may not be necessary to take a child even of 17 to a police station and there could be an important opportunity to do something that may better safeguard the child. There is a positive approach in that, and I thank the noble Baroness for what she said.
I will go through the amendments, but I wish to mention how we see these steps working in practice. If a child is stopped, they may expect first to be asked to phone an appropriate adult, if a mobile telephone or telephone is available. If they do not have a means of getting home, would it be appropriate for the officer to take them home to see whether there was an appropriate adult there to take charge of them? So, there is an issue of safety for the child. Street bail should be looked at in a practical way.
I shall deal with
Amendments Nos. 84A, 84B, 84C and 85A together, but I ask the Committee
to bear in mind the practicalities of the issue. I absolutely
understand the sentiments behind the points made by the noble Baroness,
Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, regarding the
balance that is
4 July 2006 : Column 185
I do not seek to minimise in any way the fact that the potential for a young person, or, indeed, any person, to spend time in a police cell is a crucial consideration, because I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have often debated the importance of avoiding that, unless it is really necessary. The use of street bail is specifically intended to reduce the need for a person to be taken to a police station, put before the custody officer and placed in detention. Where street bail can be issued, it means that the officer can determine a date which best suits the needs of the investigation; pre-arrange for legal advice, appropriate adults or interpreters to be available when the person answers bail; remain on the street rather than spending time travelling to the police station, processing the suspect and travelling back to their area of duty; and, equally important, remove the need for the person to be taken into custody—and to spend less time in custody when they answer bail, as the officer can better plan the investigation, particularly if there is vulnerability through age.
PACE and the PACE codes significantly recognise the special considerations and protections for people under the age of 17—and I know why the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, raised that issue. We recognised that in guidance, in Home Office Circular 61/2003, which was issued when street bail was introduced. The circular emphasises the need for special consideration to be given when dealing with a juvenile or other vulnerable person. The same emphasis will be made in guidance accompanying the commencement of this measure; in particular, the importance of risk assessing the individual and of ensuring that conditions are proportionate will be emphasised. Again, as in 2003, we will consult the Children’s Charities’ Coalition and others on the content of the guidance.
It has already been indicated in the other place that we would not envisage electronic tagging as a condition of street bail. However, attaching other conditions to street bail is about raising officer confidence that steps can be taken to minimise the opportunity for the person to further offend while on bail or to interfere with victims or witnesses.
As I explained, street bail aims to keep people out of police detention unless they really need to be there. Attaching conditions proportionate to the offence will increase the use of street bail and should lead to fewer situations when it is considered necessary to lock up a juvenile in a cell. We believe that that is an important objective. With that reassurance, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness
Linklater of Butterstone: I
thank the Minister for her reassuring response. In relation to the
presence of the appropriate adult, which is a crucial element when
dealing with children, I said that the one acceptable condition is
attendance at a police station.
4 July 2006 : Column 186
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84B and 84C not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 85:
- “( ) A
constable may impose the conditions of bail under subsection (3B) only
if he has undergone appropriate training or he is under the command of
an appropriately trained officer.
- ( ) For the purposes of the above
subsection, “appropriate training” means training
equivalent to the training given to a custody sergeant regarding the
proper imposition of conditions of bail.”
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 85 would require constables to have the appropriate training before they impose conditions on street bail. Currently, a police officer may attach conditions to bail only when a person has been charged or referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision to charge. Clause 8 and Schedule 4 would change that to enable the officer granting bail to consider attaching conditions that the Government intend should be relevant and proportionate to the suspect and the offence. In her response to the previous group of amendments, the Minister made that point with regard to younger people, to which it would also apply—that is the Government’s intention.
The conditions that can be imposed must be necessary to secure that the person surrenders to custody, does not commit an offence while on bail, and does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. Where the offender is under the age of 17, conditions may also be applied for their own welfare or in their own interest.
The Government argue that there is no need to be concerned about the extension of the process of imposing conditions on to street bail because the proposed measures reflect the bail provisions already available at the charging stage of the process. That is exactly why we think there should be concern about extending this power to the street, away from the custody sergeant, at the time of the charging process. When bail is granted in the police station, the custody sergeant, who has specialist training and expertise, performs a semi-judicial role in deciding whether bail conditions are justified. By definition the custody officer would not be present when street bail is given and instead the officer responsible for deciding on the conditions to be imposed would be the investigating officer, who would not necessarily have the training and experience of a custody officer. It is this matter of deciding whether to impose conditions that concerns us.
4 July 2006 : Column 187
We shall pass on from the matter of street bail, which we support in its broadest sense. If one imposes conditions, it is a decision that involves difficult judgments about the suspect’s likely behaviour and about the proper balance between the aims of the conditions and the rights of the suspect. Officers who impose conditions on street bail should have the training to enable them to make these decisions effectively. That seems only common sense.
When the matter was debated in another place, the Minister said that she accepted the argument that training would be needed:
- “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”.—[Official Report, Commons Standing
Committee D, 21/3/06; cols.
134-35.]
6.45 pm
Lord Dholakia: Although my name is not attached to this amendment, we support it. The Minister accepted the argument put forward on similar lines in Committee in another place, saying:
- “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”.—[Official Report, Standing
Committee D, 21 March 2006; col.
134-35.]
The point at issue is that, given that extensive training is expected, there is no reason why that should not be included in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. The crucial area is the powers that the custody officer has—some of us have visited police cells. The custody officer makes an important judgment balancing what the constable says with the rights of the individual. It is a very difficult decision in many circumstances, and he does not necessarily follow everything police officers say. In this instance it is important that that element is specified in the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, there is a difficulty because training in all areas is important. We have just spoken about training in Every Child Matters, which is essential. As I have indicated, it will be available at the end of this month and will form part of the training of officers and CSOs. From time to time there will be additional issues, each of which will need training, have their own merit and therefore will have to be undertaken. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not suggest that we list in a schedule every single element of a police officer’s training. If we did, we would probably have the Centrex introductory list, and we would have everything—all of which is important, all of which Ministers will say is essential, and all of which has to have priority.
4 July 2006 : Column 188
Chief officers are required to ensure that their officers and staff are suitably trained, competent and able to carry out the range of tasks required. Not just training but guidance will help officers know how to discharge that duty. In the same way, we had interesting discussions about the sort of training that officers should have to issue fixed-penalty notices, cautions and such matters. Guidance and training in these areas are absolutely necessary and I wholeheartedly support that sentiment, but I do not think it would be necessary or right to specifically create a statutory provision for a single area of training nor do I think that street bail would be the only aspect to which such a provision would relate if we were to do so. Attaching conditions is not the exclusive domain of street bail; the noble Baroness is right to say that the station sergeant quite often does that.
We are left in an interesting situation because, at the same time, we are saying that street bail is a good thing and we need to encourage it to be appropriately used on occasions when it is safe and in the interests of justice for it to be undertaken as regards both the potential victim and the offender. We certainly see the merit of that.
If we were to take the provision further, we would have to ask who would give the direction. Would it be the chief constable, the BCU commander or the officer’s immediate line manager, and what would happen if such an officer were not immediately available? There is no provision in the Bill to provide a power to detain in order to await the attendance of a trained officer in command. We would hope that all officers who were able, and asked, to discharge this duty would have the appropriate training.
The aim of street bail is to minimise the time that an officer spends dealing with a situation on the street and, importantly, to limit the period that a person has to be detained by the police. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be reassured by that and by the fact that we very much understand their concerns about getting the conditions right. I have indicated that we do not propose to have tagging or matters of that sort, which would put us into a slightly different league, but, as the noble Baroness rightly said, asking someone to attend, to live at an address and not to commit further offences in the interim all fall within the Bail Act. I respectfully suggest that it is reasonable to expect anyone given bail to comply with those minimum conditions so that we know where to find them if they do not happen to honour their duty and turn up.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said originally, we do not oppose the idea of street bail, but I think that we make a step-change when we apply conditions to bail. I recall my time as a magistrate—it now seems a distant memory—when one considered whether bail should be granted. Of course, the circumstance was different but the same kind of constructive approach still has to be taken when one considers the safety of the public—and the safety of the individual being bailed, because any breach of bail conditions can have significant consequences for that person.
4 July 2006 : Column 189
I assure the noble Baroness that I do not want the Centrex list of when certain training should or should not be given. However, there are moves in the Bill to take us forward to an unknown and untried area which could cause difficulties, and this is one such move. The noble Baroness very properly puts on the record that the Government do not intend one of the conditions to be electronic tagging. But we are left with the practicality of the officer on the beat, and we all want him to be able to do his job effectively, dealing with a person and moving on. But when he goes through the decision-making process, presumably he has to try to deal fairly with a number of people. That decision is highly complex, involving a judgment of the precise conditions.
In that respect, and only because I have concerns about the whole issue of conditions on street bail and how they may be applied proportionately in these circumstances, I will, unusually on these matters, seek to press the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Baroness does that, I should like to understand better why she would do so. The whole point of making street bail possible with conditions attached is that the officer is likely to be risk-averse. If there were a question of either the safety of the individual or the safety of the public, it would be appropriate not to grant bail on the street but to remove the individual to the police station and to carry out an assessment there. Street bail should properly be restricted to cases where it can be delivered safely, speedily and efficaciously without the risk of it being improper. It is a risk-averse process, which will be assisted with training and guidance. I ask the noble Baroness to think very seriously about taking the opinion of the Committee on this matter. She is of course absolutely free to do so but it would be unusually perverse of her in view of her good sense, which normally prevails in such circumstances.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My good sense is going to remain and I will need to press the matter. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s intervention. The whole point is that the officer must indeed be able to make a risk-averse decision for his own safety and that of the public, but he also needs to be confident about making the decision to impose the conditions where that is the right thing to do.
This will be one of a rolling number of amendments on which we shall need to express our concerns, although not necessarily by pressing them to a Division. However, this is not a matter to which I intend to return and I wish to resolve it. The noble Baroness has done her own Benches a great service by giving the Whips a little time in which to page people to ensure they are in position and not caused too much discomfort by having their meals interrupted. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.55 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 85) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 112.
4 July 2006 : Column 190
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Biffen, L.
Blaker, L.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Cameron of Dillington, L.
Chester, Bp.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crathorne, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Falkland, V.
Ferrers, E.
Flather, B.
Fowler, L.
Glasgow, E.
Glentoran, L.
Greengross, B.
Greenway, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L. [Teller]
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lindsay, E.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Listowel, E.
Liverpool, E.
Luke, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Monson, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Morrow, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Palumbo, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Redesdale, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Steinberg, L.
Stern, B.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tordoff, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vinson, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Walker of Worcester, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Windlesham, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Birt, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
4 July 2006 : Column 191
Drayson, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haskins, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Quin, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wilkins, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.05 pm
[Amendment No. 85A not moved.]
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 86:
(a) the time at which the person attends at a police station; and (b) 72 hours from the time at which he was released on bail.””The noble Lord said: Our amendment would restrict the maximum duration of conditions on street bail. It specifies that a condition will expire either three days after the person was released or when he attends a police station, whichever is earlier. We do not object to the use of street bail, which has existed since January 2004. It can be beneficial for both the police and the suspect. We do not wish to see people taken to a police station at times that are inconvenient for them or the police. Neither would the amendment stop conditions being imposed on street bail.
The
Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that these provisions would
not give rise to a significant risk of incompatibility with the rights
in the Human Rights Act 1998, in the light of the legal right of
the
4 July 2006 : Column 192
First, the conditions attached to street bail could severely restrict an individual’s liberty, including curfews, tagging or restrictions on who they can speak to or meet. As street bail is likely to be used in relatively minor cases, it would be disproportionate to impose these kinds of restrictions for lengthy periods. The conditions themselves could have a more severe impact on the suspect than any sentence imposed for the minor offence. Secondly, there is a risk that these conditions could be used in lieu of a criminal charge and prosecution. If reasonable time limits were imposed, it would remove that risk, requiring the police to investigate the case as quickly as possible and to decide whether to charge the suspect.
The suspect may not appreciate the right to appeal against the condition. If they did understand their rights, they may feel unable to initiate such an appeal for fear that it would jeopardise their case. Including a time limit in the Bill would ensure that the suspect attends a police station, where they will receive legal advice and the quasi-independent involvement of the custody officer.
These concerns were raised in the Commons but the Minister failed to provide satisfactory answers to them. Indeed, she accepted them, saying:
- 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”—[Official Report, Commons
Standing Committee D, 21/3/06; col.
138.]
It is precisely for these reasons that we believe that time limits are needed: to ensure that there is an incentive for the police to investigate crimes as quickly as possible, and to decide whether to charge a suspect. The Minister also suggested that the Home Office circular on street bail would provide safeguards. In reality, the circular illustrates the risk that the conditions will be used as long-lasting measures if reasonable time limits are not imposed in legislation. The circular poses the question:
It provides the following response:- “As long as
is necessary to carry out investigations but we would not anticipate
any period longer than six weeks and, in most cases, much
sooner”.
Those are our concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to Amendment No. 87, which is a probing amendment grouped with Amendment No. 86 that would impose a generous time limit of four weeks on all pre-charge bail from a police station. We are simply suggesting that that is more than enough time for the police to carry out investigations and ascertain whether there is enough evidence to charge a suspect. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to some of the issues that have to be taken into account when we have pre-charge bail conditions.
4 July 2006 : Column 193
Charging is a significant stage in the criminal justice process, and it is only at that stage that the police need to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. The power to impose restrictions on a person's freedom, whether as a condition of bail or detention in police custody before that evidential hurdle has been reached, must be limited. It is important that suspects should know the nature of the case against them and that they will ultimately appear before a court. The Magistrates’ Association stressed the importance of a safeguard as it applies to post-charge bail, pointing out that:
- “Magistrates
consider bail conditions very carefully in court and require as much
information as
possible”.
We are trying to attach a reasonable period, and within the context of 28 days. In the context of the terrorism Bill of 2005, Parliament rejected arguments for more than 28 days—the number should be burned in my brain. Indeed, tomorrow the relevant statutory instrument will put that 28-day limit into effect. Parliament rejected arguments for more than 28 days’ pre-charge detention in terrorist cases. If more than 28 days’ detention is not justified in terrorist cases, we do not see why more than 28 days’ pre-charge conditional bail would be needed to enable the police to investigate a non-terrorist case to determine whether a suspect should continue to have those conditions applied.
I note that when the then Minister—Hazel Blears—in another place responded, she said that,
the Government—- “should
look to a maximum of four to six weeks”.—[Official
Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 21/03/06; col.
140.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would be delighted to be satisfied by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but I regret that on this occasion I cannot accept her offer. Neither can I be seduced into accepting the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 both relate to time limits. Bail in the context of street bail and pre-charge bail is used respectively to prevent the need to bring a person immediately into custody or to enable the release of a suspect from custody while allowing the police to continue with their investigation.
Attaching conditions is about raising the ability and confidence of the police to release people from custody for a period sufficient to enable the necessary further inquiries to be completed. I appreciate that the amendments reflect your Lordships’ rightful concern that bail conditions issued by the police rather than court may be seen as an arbitrary use of powers.
That
is why, in the case of street bail, we have made provisions which allow
a person the right of appeal to a custody officer in the first instance
and then to a magistrate. In the case of pre-charge bail, the person is
entitled to appeal to the magistrate. That right will be made clear to
the person at the time at which the bail is
4 July 2006 : Column 194
The application of conditions must be proportionate and stand up to scrutiny. The period for which conditions apply must be relevant to the progress of the investigation. I can see little benefit in applying an arbitrary time limit to the lifetime of bail conditions, although I understand and endorse what my right honourable friend said in the other place in relation to the normal expectation, which might be for that time, but we want to do things as expeditiously as possible and not bring people back unnecessarily early if that would be for no good purpose. We would simply have to bail them again to a time when the investigation was complete.
I respectfully say to both the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it would be preferable if the officer had discretion to enable a person to be released on bail either with or without conditions rather than holding the person in custody when they can quite safely be released. Placing an imposed time would in effect result in the officer having suspects return to or enter custody at a time when there may be no real prospect of the investigation being proceeded with sufficiently, or when the decision can be made on whether or not to proceed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |