Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, the three amendments in this group are variations on a theme, which is to amend the definition of the word "gang" to ensure that it incorporates criminal activity. Amendment 135 would remove Clause 33(5) and insert a new definition of the word "gang". It is heavily based on an amendment originally proposed by Justice in its February 2009 briefing on these clauses. As a result of concerns expressed at earlier stages of this Bill, I would accept that the Government have introduced a definition of gang-related violence as, ""violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that … consists of at least 3 people … uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and … is associated with a particular area"." The trouble is that a punch-up on a football pitch between the members of two football teams could fall under this definition, as could as a group of three or four boy scouts in their uniforms who were associated with a particular area and—it is unthinkable—got up to some graffiti. That would be criminal damage and it could also be caught by this definition. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention. Nevertheless, all sorts of young people often get up to things that they should not. They may go around in groups of three or four and always be associated with the same place. That is how one has friends or associates, depending on what you call them. However, the question is whether the group, ""habitually engages in criminal activity"," as my third definition suggests. When discussing these matters, the Minister has often talked about very serious issues and very nasty people. But none of those things are in the Bill. We know what he is talking about, but, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, this provision could apply to much less serious matters and to people who are far less hard to deal with than those whom he has in mind at the moment. I do not believe that what is being said is reflected in the Bill. If the Minister is talking about groups who habitually go out and shoot at each other then I would point out that they would fall under Amendment 135B. Habitually taking guns without a licence and shooting at other people is certainly criminal activity. If we are being asked to have these extreme forms of injunction then it would be better to have a definition that covers what the Minister implied when he spoke of the seriousness of the situation. At the moment it does not appear as serious as it should given the nature of the removal of liberty. A much more serious definition is needed in the Bill. I beg to move.