Policing and Crime Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply. If the measures under Clause 34(3) are as he described, they all sound very reasonable—someone who has an alcohol problem, for example, might have to attend an alcohol management programme. But if these things are to be effective, you will have to have the person’s buy-in, and if the person is being forced to do it, you will not get that buy-in. Having been a trustee of a drugs charity, I know from the experts who work there how much more effective drugs treatment is when people buy into it and are not forced to do so by the court, although it has to be accepted that there are some successes when people are forced by the court. The Minister mentioned interim injunctions. It occurs to me that these are a replacement for good policing. If a temporary injunction is made, the police will have to be there anyway to make sure that it happens. The police can therefore avoid the retaliatory shooting or whatever it is that they are supposed to be preventing by the interim injunction. Good quality policing and sufficient resources for the police to respond to the sort of intelligence to which the Minister referred are a preferable route to go down, rather than the temporary injunctions that we seek to amend in this group of amendments. I will read carefully what the Minister has said, consult with my noble friend Lady Miller and perhaps come back to these issues on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 133 withdrawn. Amendment 134 not moved.