Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, these provisions form part of a package, so I should like to set out the Government’s thinking behind the gang injunctions and speak on Part 4 as a whole. I know that a lot of these issues have been raised already, but if noble Lords would bear with me I should like to give an overall flavour of them. I am aware of the concerns. All of us in this House realise that violence is unacceptable in a modern society and that the Government have a responsibility to reduce violent crime. It is important that we tackle the disturbing trend of violent crime being committed by young people for the most trivial of reasons. We know that a significant proportion of such incidents are related to the gang culture that we are seeing, and the disputes that we see between gangs over the most petty drug dealing, involving very distorted values of respect and even who lives in which postcode. That can even cause people to shoot each other; that is quite extraordinary. These incidents are not only costing the lives of the unfortunate young people who become involved but, as we know from the media, it can also affect innocent individuals who happen just to get in the way of gunfire or fighting. There was the very sad and high-profile case of 11 year-old Rhys Jones, who was killed in Croxteth Park in Liverpool. Our view is, as I have stated a number of times, that where a crime has been committed, the perpetrator should be pursued to the full extent of the criminal law. However, the deterrence created by the sanctions of the criminal law, I am afraid, does not always seem to be sufficient to prevent offences being committed. We are firmly in favour of prosecuting offences where the evidence is sufficient and the public interest is such as to support that prosecution. Of course we are committed to improving the awareness of young individuals to give them the level of social understanding that enables them to make the right decisions in life. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is absolutely right to say that there is a whole raft of important issues and that it is important for there to be ways to make these things change, but very often one cannot do that straightaway. We want to steer young people away from damaging gang culture and violent crime, but that is difficult and takes a lot of co-ordinated effort to achieve. However, it is our view that where lives are at stake—which in respect of gang-related violent crime they clearly are—police and local authorities should be adequately equipped to intervene before it is too late. That is the role of Part 4. The new provisions enable police and local authorities to apply to the courts for a new injunction to prevent gang-related violence. Birmingham City Council used injunctions granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and applied for under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, to put in place similar provisions that contributed to a significant reduction in gang violence and robberies. The director of the Safer Birmingham Partnership, Jackie Russell, recently wrote to inform me that: ""Injunctions were able to reduce serious harm offences by 15%, robbery by 12.5% and violent crime by 6%"." I believe that we can build on these successes—which were constrained in how they had to be applied—by giving the gang injunction a firm statutory basis and issuing helpful guidance to applicant authorities. Another key element of the injunctions is that they should attract significant public support. We know that in Birmingham there was strong public support for the approach in neighbourhoods where gangs are a problem. I received another letter, this one from Assistant Chief Constable Suzette Davenport of the West Midlands Police, which said: ""The community recognised the importance of these orders. Some mothers implored us to seek an order for their son so that ‘he doesn’t end up dead’"." We believe that the community support was due in no small part to the fact that the injunctions did not criminalise the respondents. I have placed copies of both letters in the House Library. I shall now briefly explain the nature of our provisions, which are very similar to those used in Birmingham that attracted the support that I have mentioned. Before the court grants a full injunction, it must be satisfied that the two conditions set out in Clause 33 are met. The first is that the court should be satisfied that the respondent’s past conduct has included engaging in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence. The court must consider evidence of past behaviour to a civil standard, on "the balance of probabilities". This is a completely civil tool that does not include a criminal conviction for breach—one of the key factors behind community support in Birmingham. The second condition is that the injunction is necessary to prevent the respondent engaging in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence, and/or to protect the respondent from such violence. It is important to refer to what is meant by "gang-related violence", which Clause 33 establishes 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, … has any other characteristic that enables its members to be identified by others as a group, and … is associated with a particular area"." There has been significant debate in the other place and here tonight on this matter, but I am confident that through these debates we have arrived at the best possible definition to properly focus these provisions. I am sure that there will be more discussion on this. I am very wary, from previous incarnations, of ending up talking about a definition for 14 days and dancing on a pinhead with it. I realise the importance of definitions, but one has to be sensible about them. We are aware that a number of definitions are being used in different areas by different professions. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, there is a significant difference between a descriptive definition in an academic paper and a definition that is suitably clear for the statute books. The gang problem is one that varies and evolves—we talked about this earlier, as well—and for this reason the provisions need to remain flexible. The Government do not seek to outlaw "gangs" as a concept. Groups of young people whose conduct is entirely reasonable do not need addressing. This is why we have sought to define gang-related violence. It is the violence that needs preventing, not the gang membership. Where police have intelligence that gang violence is imminent, Clause 38 enables them immediately to obtain an interim injunction without notice—for example, to prevent gang members travelling to the place where they are expected to commit an act of violence, or to prevent gang members associating with those expected to participate in the violence. The court must specify a time for which the prohibitions or requirements under the section apply. Once obtained, the injunctions are designed to prevent future violence—whether the threat is of immediate or longer-term violence—as well as undermining the strength of a gang and offering support in finding a route out of the gang to those who seek it. One can encourage gang members to seek a route out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right to say that you cannot make them do so—just as alcoholics must decide that they are no longer going to be alcoholics. Clause 34 can be used to prevent gang members from entering, or meeting each other in, a particular neighbourhood or area. Preventing gang members from meeting in what they think of as their territory undermines the strength of the gang and so renders its members less capable of committing violence and intimidating others. These injunctions also seek to remove the external manifestations of gang strength, which intimidate both the wider community and other gang members, to prevent, as appropriate, a particular local gang problem or gang members going to a public place with a violent dog, wearing gang colours or bandanas or using the internet to encourage gang violence. Noble Lords will recognise that a large part of this new provision is about prevention and enforcement. However, we recognise that gang members will not change their lives if we do not offer them positive alternatives to their violent criminality—that was discussed by a number of Members of the Committee this evening—so this provision also enables courts to compel gang members to take part in mentoring, training, education schemes or even drug treatment programmes. In those things, one has to get gang members to want to make it happen. That can be done; I have seen it in the cadet forces. This is set out in Clause 34(3). To summarise, these clauses provide a vital new tool in the fight against gang violence. They will help protect communities through the effective prevention of violence and will effect long-term change by engaging with gang members and changing their behaviour. We should face the fact that that is what will make things change. It is rather like our counterterrorism policy, "Prevent", which, by stopping radicalisation and extremism, finally does these things. I know that was a bit long, but I hope it gave a flavour of the totality.