Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, this amendment was proposed originally by the JCHR and it requires consultation on the guidance. Gang-related violence is defined in Clause 32(5) of the Bill but unfortunately, as we heard earlier today, there is no definition of what constitutes a gang. This was the subject of much debate in another place, as it was earlier today in your Lordships’ House. During the debates in another place the Minister agreed to consider whether a definition could be incorporated into the Bill, and we have heard similar warm words today. Given this commitment, the JCHR wrote and asked the Minister whether the Government intended to set out in the Bill the definition of a gang. The Minister replied that the Government did not intend to do so at that stage because gangs vary from city to city. We have heard a number of different definitions today. The Minister at that stage considered that the term gang was well understood and expected its ordinary interpretation to apply. In Clause 46, the Secretary of State is required to issue and publish guidance to which those who are permitted to apply for gangs injunctions must have regard. The Minister confirmed in another place that the code of practice would need to be published in draft and put before Parliament for scrutiny. In correspondence, the Minister told the JCHR that the Government were considering whether to lay guidance before Parliament before the Act enters into force. He also said that the draft guidance would be published as soon as possible and, in any event, before the commencement of the legislation. The JCHR is concerned that the power to interfere with various convention rights by imposing a gangs injunction is insufficiently defined in law to satisfy legal certainty, which of course is another feature of human rights law. The word gang is not a precise or legal term. Its potentially wide application is a problem given the broad discretion which the Bill gives to those seeking applications. So, in the interests of legal certainty, the term should be defined in the Bill. But if the Government continue to propose only to deal with the definition in guidance, such guidance should be clear and detailed and set out the boundaries of the term, including those groupings of individuals which the term will not encompass, such as, for example, protestors. It should be regularly reviewed and updated at least annually to take account of changing circumstances and evolving case law, and it should be published in draft alongside the Bill as it goes through its remaining parliamentary stages, which is now. In later correspondence with the JCHR, the Government only agreed to publish the draft guidance before the commencement of the Act, so they appear to be backtracking on their commitment in another place to allow Parliament to scrutinise the draft guidance before the Act comes into force. That is why we on these Benches are now urging the Government to reconsider. Given the significant issues which the guidance is intended to cover, it is vital for your Lordships’ House and Parliament as a whole to have an opportunity to scrutinise not only the Act but also the draft guidance, in order to understand how the two will operate in practice, and to understand whether, taken together, they are compatible with human rights standards. I beg to move.