Policing and Crime Bill

Absolutely, but as the case was well made during the debate on the programme motion, I shall not go back over that ground. The injunctions on gang members were said by the Government to be very effective in Birmingham, but Nottingham county court and then the Court of Appeal ruled that, first, the evidence being used to justify such draconian controls on people was too flimsy to justify them, and secondly, that existing powers and legislation were adequate. In the short time that we had to debate this matter in Committee—perhaps this will also be the case in the two or three minutes that the Minister will have to answer today—the Government have in no way been able to make an adequate case as to why they think the existing legislation is inadequate and needs this draconian step forward; why such serious restrictions, which could almost amount to a control order, depending on how they are imposed, should have a lesser burden of proof—the civil burden of proof rather than the criminal standard—and why the state should protect people against their will in some cases, other than, obviously, in cases involving mental health legislation. The Government have not given us any evidence, either, that they have considered the USA evidence from California and Chicago. The Stanford Law Review examined the approaches there, which have been in use for 20-odd years in some cases, and said that gang injunctions appear to work, but in fact simply move the problem to the next neighbourhood and do not have any effect, except to stigmatise large groups of people. It cited the case involving a 16-year-old, in which the police told the school involved that he was a cousin of some gang members who lived on his street and was thus probably in the gang, so he ended up being suspended from school, although there was no evidence that he had any involvement at all. The university of Manchester has done research in Britain that shows similar stigmatisation occurring. It has studied the American examples and shown how the gang injunction process in America has slipped into mainstream law. In Committee, I, like other hon. Members, raised the issue of the way in which various pieces of legislation—counter-terrorism legislation—have similarly slipped into use in mainstream law in terms of controlling peaceful demonstrations at arms fairs, environmental events and so on. Finally, the Government have not explained why, given that most of the examples the Minister gave at the start of the debate in Committee involved 15, 16 and 17-year-olds carrying guns and knifing each other, this legislation does not apply to anybody under 18 and, as has been said, is therefore a toothless paper tiger. Liberal Democrats believe that, as I argued in Committee, for such serious restraints on people's liberty, which potentially amount to control orders, a criminal standard of evidence, and time limits, should apply to injunctions. We expressed doubt about the state imposing draconian restrictions on someone "for their own protection", so we tabled our amendments, which are very similar to the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the amendments that resulted from those. Given the derisory and insulting amount of time— 30 minutes—that we have had to debate this matter today, which means that the Minister will barely be able to answer, I do not propose to push the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues to a vote. I know that in Committee the Minister feared that this provision would not get through the House of Lords. I hope that that House will take note of what was said in Committee, and what has been said—very briefly—today, and will go through this in great detail and at great length. I hope that either it will insist that the Minister makes some very convincing arguments, which we have not yet heard, or it will radically alter the Bill when it reaches the other place.