Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Over the past few years, the Government have achieved significant success in reducing crime overall, but there is no doubt that the perception that violent crime has risen, or is rising, mars their overall achievement and has an impact on their confidence. It is therefore not surprising, but welcome, that they have introduced the Bill. I use the word ““perception”” in relation to violent crime because it is often difficult to get a grip on exactly what is happening. When one considers, for example, that well over half of all recorded violent crime did not involve any injury to the victim, one can see that the statistics are hard to understand. That happens to be the case, although it is not quite as daft as it sounds. There has certainly been an increase in the recording of non-injury crimes that would never have been recorded by the police 10 years ago; that is why the recording system has been changed. The statistics also tell us that there has been an increase in certain types of crime that are at the more violent end of the spectrum—gun crime or knife crime—or are in more public places and involve a greater risk of crime from strangers or acquaintances. The sense that the number of such crimes is rising generates the current public concern. Some of us are not necessarily happy with that. Those of us who worked for years on domestic violence have never entirely bought the idea that violence from someone one knows is in some way better or more acceptable than from someone one does not know. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the fear of violence in public places from strangers has a greater resonance with the public and makes a greater contribution to public concern. The Bill has some potentially useful measures, but they will be so only if they are put into practice alongside many others. It has measures that essentially close loopholes, cover gaps or nuance existing policies—for example, the difference between a banning order and an antisocial behaviour order—and measures in areas where the pressure to be seen to act has become overwhelming. I am not yet convinced that the measures on imitation firearms will reduce the number of victims of firearm crime, but I understand why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is necessary none the less to be seen to act against what the public generally regard as a scandal—the widespread marketing of such weapons. Let me deal with a couple of issues that should have been acted on previously. The measures on alcohol disorder zones are overdue. I wish that it had been possible to incorporate that approach in the Licensing Act 2003. The current proposals reflect the debate that raged within Government at that time between the argument that the whole industry, responsible or not, is plying people with alcohol in town and city centres and needs to pick up the cost, and the argument that we have to deal with badly run premises. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend has moved towards saying that the industry as a whole, not the relatively small number of badly run premises, has to pick up the costs of policing, late night transport, street cleaning and so on. The Bill potentially takes us a long way in the direction of ensuring that the costs lie where they properly should. However, I have a couple of caveats about that; it will be important to scrutinise the Bill carefully as it goes through Committee. I take my right hon. Friend’s answer to my earlier question straightforwardly. He clearly wishes that the statutory scheme of an alcohol disorder zone, with fees set in Whitehall, should be applied locally in as few places as possible, and hopes that the threat of an action plan or the putting in place of an action plan will lead to better, locally tailored schemes that suit the needs of each area. I share that view. I have no desire to see a national scheme imposed willy-nilly on every single town and city centre. Equally, let us be blunt about this. If the Bill does not result in a much more substantial contribution from the drinks industry to the costs of policing and maintaining our town and city centres, it will fall short of what is needed. At the moment, the costs of policing those town and city centres is borne by council tax payers who by and large do not live in them—they pay their bills but do not see a police officer on a Friday or Saturday night because they are all down at the town centre policing the binge drinking. We must ensure that relatively low-scale voluntary schemes are not put in place as an alternative to a proper charging regime. Although I commend, and have seen, many of the voluntary schemes that have been mentioned today, most of them fall well short of the level of contribution that is required towards the costs of policing our town and city centres. I hope that we will be able to see the guidance that comes from the Home Office before the Bill completes its passage in this House, because that will be crucial in determining the threshold of the problem that one must have before one can initiate an action plan or have an alcohol disorder zone. If that threshold is set too high, the measures in the Bill will apply in too limited a number of circumstances. I want to turn briefly to the measures on knife crime.