 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet Public Bill Committee Debates Policing and Crime Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris
Shaw, Andrew Kennon, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 February 2009(Morning)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Policing and Crime BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HousePC 68 Association of
Chief Police
Officers PC 69
Northumbria
Police PC 70
Dr. Nicola
Mai PC 71
Terrence Higgins
Trust PC 72
Susan Marie Harris
9
am
The
Chairman: I have cut it rather fine this morning. I had a
particular problem that I will not go into with the Committee. We made
excellent progress on Tuesday and have arrived at clause 89, to which a
number of amendments have been tabled. I gather that the first group is
rather important. We have to break at 10.25 to get into the House for
Prayers and Question Time. I have no doubt that the arrangements made
through the usual channels will be met, although perhaps with some
difficulty and requiring some discipline on both sides of the
Committee.
Clause 89Extent
The
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
(Mr. Vernon Coaker): I beg to move amendment
290, in
clause 89, page 103, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(ba) sections
[Injunctions to prevent gang-related violence] to
[Interpretation] and Schedule [Injunctions: powers to
remand],’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government new clause 11— Injunctions to
prevent gang-related
violence— ‘(1) A court
may grant an injunction under this section if two conditions are
met. (2) The first condition is
that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the
respondent has engaged in, or has encouraged or assisted, gang-related
violence. (3) The second
condition is that the court thinks it is necessary to grant the
injunction for either or both of the following
purposes— (a) to prevent
the respondent from engaging in, or encouraging or assisting,
gang-related violence; (b) to
protect the respondent from gang-related
violence. (4) An injunction
under this section may (for either or both of those
purposes)— (a) prohibit
the respondent from doing anything described in the
injunction;
(b) require the respondent to do anything described
in the injunction. (5) In this
section “gang-related violence” means violence or a
threat of violence which occurs in the course of the activities of a
gang or is otherwise related to such
activities.’. Amendment
(a) to new clause 11, at end
insert— ‘(6) In this section
“gang” shall mean a group of people who see themselves or
are seen by others as a discernable group and exhibit any one or more
of the following
factors— (a) engaging in
criminal activity; (b)
identifying with a particular geographical
area; (c) having some form of
identifying organisational
feature; (d) being in conflict
with other similar
gangs.’. Government
new clause 12—Contents of
injunctions. Government
new clause 13—Contents of injunctions:
supplemental. Government
new clause 14—Applications for injunctions under section
[Injunctions to prevent gang-related
violence]. Government
new clause 15—Consultation by applicants for
injunctions— ‘(1) Before
applying for an injunction under section [Applications for injunctions
under section [Injunctions to prevent gang-related violence]], the
applicant must comply with the consultation
requirement. (2) In the case of
an application by a chief officer of police, the consultation
requirement is that the chief officer (“the applicant chief
officer”) must
consult— (a) any local
authority that the applicant chief officer considers it would be
appropriate to consult, and (b)
any other chief officer of police whom the applicant chief officer
considers it would be appropriate to
consult. (3) In the case of an
application by the chief constable of the British Transport Police
Force, the consultation requirement is that the constable must
consult— (a) any local
authority that the constable considers it would be appropriate to
consult, and (b) any chief
officer of police whom the constable considers it would be appropriate
to consult. (4) In the case of
an application by a local authority, the consultation requirement is
that the local authority (“the applicant local
authority”) must
consult— (a) any chief
officer of police whom the applicant local authority considers it would
be appropriate to consult,
and (b) any other local
authority that the applicant local authority considers it would be
appropriate to
consult.’. Amendment
(a) to new clause 15, after subsection (2)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
applicant chief officer considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the applicant chief officer considers would be
appropriate to
consult.’. Amendment
(b) to new clause 15, after subsection (3)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
constable considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the constable considers would be appropriate to
consult.’.
Amendment (c)
to new clause 15, after subsection (4)(b)
insert— ‘(c) any primary
care trust, mental health trust or other NHS authority that the
applicant local authority considers would be appropriate to consult;
and (d) any youth offending
team, local probation service or office of the National Offender
Management Service that the applicant local authority considers would
be appropriate to
consult.’. Government
new clause 16—Applications without
notice. Government
new clause 17—Interim injunctions: adjournment of on notice
hearing. Government
new clause 18—Interim injunctions: adjournment of without
notice
hearing. Government
new clause 19—Variation or discharge of
injunctions. Government
new clause 20—Arrest without
warrant. Government
new clause 21—Issue of warrant of
arrest. Government
new clause 22—Remand for medical examination and
report. Government
new clause 23—Further provision about
remands. Government
new clause
24—Guidance. Government
new clause
25—Supplemental. Government
new clause
26—Interpretation. New
schedule 2—Injunctions: Powers to
Remand.
Mr.
Coaker: Good morning, Sir Nicholas. We are pleased that
you have arrived safely and on time, even if it was a little touch and
go. Good morning to the
Committee. In
your opening, Sir Nicholas, you pointed out that this is an extremely
important group of proposals. I am sure that the hon. Members for
Hornchurch, for Chesterfield and for Oxford, West and Abingdon will
agree that there are important points that must be made. We have
managed to have lengthy debates in Committee when necessary, while
making progress. I think that we may spend some time discussing these
proposals and I see no problem with that. I am sure that other hon.
Members will agree. Quite frankly, I am sure that the public would
expect us to reflect on and debate the issue of gangs at some length,
given its
importance. I
will make a few introductory remarks before reading for the record what
the provisions will do. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to
respond to that and I will respond to their points as we go
through. As
I have said before, I believe that there are significant pieces of
social reform and public policy changes in the Bill. I will not go
through them all, but Committee members will agree that we have had
worthwhile and significant debates on alcohol, prostitution and police
collaboration, to name just three. The issue of gangs is as important
as any other that we have discussed. I am sure all Committee members
agree that the phenomenon of gangs is one of the big questions that
confronts us. It is easy to make populist remarks on how we should deal
with gangs and to produce throwaway headline solutions. Trying to
achieve something that deals with the issue is much more
difficult. I
have looked at the Liberal Democrat amendments that were not selected
and at those tabled by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for
Hornchurch
that were selected. It is clear that the amendments reflect deep thought
and consideration on this issue. The report by the right hon. Member
for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was also
a valuable piece of work. Many other reports have been done on this,
and that is worth putting on the record as well.
Let us be
clear what we are not talking about. We are not talking about a group
of kids at the end of a street. We are not talking about some young
people hanging around, and I will come to whether they are under 18 or
over 18 in a moment because there is an issue there. We are not talking
about people hanging around on a park bench. People often ask me,
“Didn’t you sit around outside on a park bench?” I
was often near a telephone box. It was even push button A and push
button B, if hon. Members can remember that. That shows how long ago it
was.
These
measures must not be looked at in the context of trying to criminalise
young people up to 23 or 24, or whatever. We can argue about the exact
age later. We are not trying to criminalise young people. These new
clauses are about tackling serious, violent, aggressive, dangerous
individuals. Those individuals have no regard for other members of
society. Frankly, they do not frighten other people, they terrorise
them. It would be remiss of this Committee and of this or any
Government not to reflect on what we do about that.
This may be a
point that the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Oxford, West and
Abingdon may raise, but if these people can be prosecuted through the
criminal justice system it should be the first option. Nobody disagrees
with that. Let us try to lay two myths: first, this is not about
teenagers or people slightly older than that hanging around. Secondly,
it is not about avoiding using the criminal justice system when that is
the best option. It is important to put that on the
record. Public
policy with respect to gangs, as with respect to all such
matters, is undermined by debate about whether one is a wishy-washy
liberal or a tough law enforcer, wanting either to hang and flog or to
hug everyone. This area of public policy is bedevilled by that schism.
No one who is of sound mind would argue that it is sufficient for
someone who is dangerous, is breaking the law and has done seriously
wrong, simply to say sorry. Tough law enforcement is the appropriate
and the first
approach. Alongside
that, we want a preventive approach and a diversionary approach as
well. I had the pleasure over the weekend of going out on Operation
Staysafe, which is about police and children’s services working
together to try to get vulnerable young people off the streets,
particularly when they are under the influence of alcohol, taking them
to a place of safety, working with social workers and then engaging the
parents. The shadow Home Secretary was apparently trying to do
something similar on Monday
morning. Those
introductory remarks are important. What are we trying to deal with
here? If they have not already done so, all members of the Committee
should have a look on the internet—it is hard to know how to
describe this, without giving gangs the respect they crave—to
see some of the musings and information about gangs. Anybody who says
that we are trying to deal with kids hanging around should go on the
internet and have a look. It is appalling. The most appalling thing
about the
gang stuff on the internet is that it is put there, not by people
talking about things they do not do but by those actually boasting
about the things they do. It is a way of communicating and trying to
get at other gangs. Just Google “gangs”, “street
gangs” or “violent street gangs” in any major city
and see what comes up. That is what we are trying to wrestle with. This
is about serious street violence and trying to do something about
it.
After my
introductory remarks I will read into the record what the new clauses
do. In looking at what to do, we saw the success of what happened in
Birmingham and then determined—following the judgment in the
courts—that we needed to correct and change the law. This
approach—where people feel it appropriate and with the proper
judicial oversight—could be used subject to two conditions:
first, that somebody had been engaged in or had encouraged or assisted
gang-related violence and, secondly, to prevent it in the
future.
One of the
key new clauses—I suggest members of the Committee read it
again—includes some prohibitions and requirements. I will pick a
couple of the prohibitions to give a flavour to the Committee. For
example, somebody cannot go into a certain area. This is to try to
combat the territoriality—the postcoding—that gangs have.
There are people dying on our streets because they go into the wrong
postcode. That is how serious it is. There are young—and
older—people being shot, stabbed or attacked because they go
into the wrong postcode area. So there is an issue of
territoriality.
The second
issue I would draw attention to is that of wearing colours. Somebody
asked me about football supporters. I am not talking about football
supporters. One has to inject some common sense and realism into this.
I am not talking about somebody wearing a rosette or a scout badge.
That debases the debate. Anybody with an ounce of sense realises that.
We are talking about people who wear colours to display the gang they
belong to so that when they go into other areas people will know. It is
like a uniform. If we fail to recognise some of this, we will not be
able to tackle the scale of the issue. Before I, the hon. Member for
Hornchurch or others are attacked, I emphasise that I am not saying
that this applies to every young person or that it takes place in every
area of the country. Let us get that out of the way before we are
attacked for portraying everybody in that way. I am not. The vast
majority are law-abiding. I am talking about a serious problem in some
areas.
There is also
a prohibition regarding the internet, which tackles something I was
talking about earlier. A further very disturbing issue is the use of
animals as weapons; the increasing use of dogs. We know what sort of
dogs we are talking about. They are used as status symbols but they are
also used to intimidate, attack and threaten. That is where we are with
some of this. That is what this measure tackles. Many of us have
visited police forces and communities, and the police increasingly say
that such use of animals is of growing concern. Before anybody starts,
I am not talking about poodles or pets, but about animals that are used
as weapons. I am labouring the point, but if we are not careful the
debate will move off sensible discussion about real problems and on to
concerns—albeit, I suppose, legitimate—that can undermine
the debate. So, the prohibitions are
important.
9.15
am I
come now to the under-18s. The injunctions in Birmingham apply to
over-18s; injunctions for under-18s are difficult. Technically, the
injunctions can apply to under-18s. That is an important point, because
there will be a lot of discussion about who the injunctions apply to
and their impact on children. Injunctions, however, have to be
enforceable and it is unlikely that they would be enforceable for
somebody under 18: the court cannot fine someone who does not have a
source of income and most gang members would not have a legitimate
source. Nor can the court sentence someone under 18 to detention in a
young offenders institution—the penalty for breaching one of
these orders—for a civil contempt of
court. Changing
the law to enable the courts to use injunctions for under-18s would
involve a major change in how civil law interacts with
minors—under-18s. However, I recognise that a tool for managing
under-18s would be welcomed by those on the front line, seeking to
manage gangs, and by those communities most affected by gangs. This
area is very contentious and I will therefore try to involve others. I
have asked my officials to work with others across Government to see
whether we can amend how civil injunctions work to enable the provision
to be used for under-18s. I am progressing this with trepidation and
care and I shall try to involve as many people as
possible. The
injunctions are good, but as they are constituted there are problems
with under-18s. The hon. Member for Hornchurch is a lawyer and will
understand that better than I do. However, who has been arrested for
the recent murder in London? Who has been arrested for many of the
other murders, not only in London but across the country? It is not
people aged 19, 20 or 21, although it often is—many of the
injunctions in Birmingham were against people of that age group. Those
arrested in these cases are aged 15, 16 or 17 and, as the hon. Member
for Hornchurch says, there are problems with even younger
people. This
is a difficult area. I do not mean this sarcastically, but it is a
shame that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not here. I
can hear what the retort will be, as the Bill progresses through the
House, about using such injunctions against under-18s. But no one
standing where I am, with my responsibilities, could ignore what was
happening on the street. The public policy challenge—the social
reform challenge—is how to tackle that, given, as I said at the
beginning, that we would use the criminal law first and try to divert
people. But there are now 15, 16 and 17-year-olds and younger children
involved in serious violent gang activity, and 15, 16 and 17-year-olds
who are not involved in such activity but are now before the courts on
a murder charge. Our task is to see whether a civil preventive tool,
alongside everything else, would prevent that from happening in the
first place. We should find a way, no matter how difficult or
controversial, to legislate and create a civil preventive tool that
prevents a 16-year-old from going to an area, wearing colours,
associating with others or being used by people over 18 to do their
errands or dirty work, which is increasingly happening as 19, 20 and
21-year-olds use 11, 12 and 13-year-olds to do things for them. If we
can do that alongside the
action that we are taking, as well as the measures that we need to take,
we will contribute to making our streets
safer. I
feel very passionate about the issue, because I chair a
cross-departmental group that is part of our tackling knives action
programme. The group examines events on a weekly basis and met
yesterday morning. No murders had been reported to it for a number of
weeks, but it was told of four murders at yesterday’s meeting.
That is what we are about; we are trying to prevent those from
happening. Anyone can make jibes, but all will agree that we need to
prevent people from being murdered on the streets, wherever they may
be. The debate centres on how best to do
that. I
apologise for detaining members of the Committee on this issue, but I
hope that those important remarks are helpful to them. I know that the
hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Chesterfield, and maybe other
members of the Committee, will have something to say on this crucial
and fundamental debate. I should also note that Government amendment
290 relates to England and
Wales. I
will spend a few moments on further amendments. New clause 11 sets out
the two conditions that must be satisfied before a court may grant an
injunction. 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. The
second condition is that the injunction is necessary to prevent the
respondent in engaging, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence
and/or to protect the respondent from such violence. A court may make
such prohibitions or requirements as it considers appropriate, provided
that they are necessary either to prevent the respondent from engaging
in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence, or to protect the
respondent from such violence. New clause 12 provides for
that in more
detail. New
clause 11 also defines gang-related violence
as “violence
or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of the activities of
a gang or is otherwise related to such
activities.”. The
clause also stipulates that threats of violence should be included in
the definition. Whether violence or threats of violence are
gang-related will be a matter for the court to
decide. New
clause 11(4) explains that a court may
“prohibit the
respondent from doing anything described in the
injunction” or “require
the respondent to do anything described in the
injunction.” Of
course, a court must be satisfied that those prohibitions or
requirements are necessary in order to prevent gang-related violence as
per subsection (3) of the same
clause. New
clause 12 gives examples of the effects that prohibitions or
requirements could have, and that a court could consider, including
effectively preventing gang-related violence. The Government have
learnt from Birmingham city council’s use of injunctions that
exclusion zones and non-association prohibitions can be particularly
effective in disrupting gang-related violence. Our intention is that
courts should be confident in applying such restrictions, and they are
therefore provided for in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). The
clause’s requirements include notifying the applicant of a
change of address,
a curfew, or the need to participate in particular activities.
Requirements must have the effect of preventing gang-related
violence. The
types of activities that we envisage respondents being required to
participate in include community call-in or mentoring sessions. Such
activities give authorities and community leaders the opportunity to
engage with gang members, to explain the effects of gang-related
violence in their area, and to offer them opportunities to learn,
develop and exit the gang lifestyle. Committee members will also note
that we have included a specific safeguard—that is really
important—within the clause that prevents prohibitions or
requirements from interfering with religious beliefs, or the
respondent’s work or education.
New
clause 13 guides how courts should manage the length of the injunction.
It makes it clear that the injunction can be made for a fixed period,
or until further order of the court. It also allows the court to set a
review hearing, during the life of the injunction, to consider whether
it needs to be varied or
discharged. Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Will my hon.
Friend clarify two points? The first point regards sanctions, which I
presume he will come on to. The second point is on the issue of what is
accepted as a religion, because that can be very important with young
people, for example, with Rastas. There are different religions that
might not be
recognised.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 27 February 2009 |