Consultation outcome

Serious violence legal duty consultation (accessible version)

Updated 18 August 2021

This consultation begins on 1 April 2019.

This consultation ends on 28 May 2019.

About this consultation

To: The public, those with expertise in working with young people at risk of criminal involvement and/or re-offending or victimisation, those involved in law enforcement and, more generally, the communities affected by serious violence including the voluntary and community sector. This includes relevant professionals, such as those working in social care, education, law enforcement, local government, community safety, youth services, offender management, victims’ services, public health and healthcare.

Duration: From 01/04/19 to 28/05/19

Enquiries (including requests for the paper in an alternative format) to:

Serious Violence Legal Duty Consultation
Home Office
Serious Violence Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Tel: 0207 035 8303

Email: SVLegalDutyConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk

How to respond: To help analyse the responses please submit your response using the online form

Please send your response by 28 May 2019.

If, for exceptional reasons, you are unable to use the online system, for example because you use specialist accessibility software that is not compatible with the system, you may download a Word document version of the form and email it or post it to:

Serious Violence Legal Duty Consultation
Home Office
Serious Violence Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Tel: 0207 035 8303

Email: SVLegalDutyConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk

Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published within 12 weeks of the consultation closing.

Executive summary

Tackling serious violence is a top priority for the Government and we are determined to continue to step up the response to stop this violence. The Serious Violence Strategy sets out the Government’s approach, which we are clear is not solely focused on law enforcement, but which depends also on a multi-agency approach across several sectors and stresses the importance of early intervention to tackle the root causes.

As part of our determination to address this issue, the Government is consulting on whether to introduce a new legal duty to support the multi-agency action needed to prevent and tackle serious violence. The intention to consult on this proposal was announced by the Home Secretary in October 2018 and it builds on the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy launched in April 2018.

The consultation paper sets out options for supporting a multi-agency or ‘public health’ approach through the introduction of a new legal duty. It also includes a non-legislative option, for partners to work together voluntarily to tackle serious violence. In this document, we outline the basis for a new legal duty, we describe what is meant in this consultation by ‘serious violence’ and a multi-agency or ‘public health’ approach and we detail different partnership models. The consultation paper explains the case and our vision for such a duty and presents different options and asks questions about them. A questionnaire summarising the questions asked is at the end of the document. A full cost assessment will be included as part of the Government response to this consultation in due course.

The geographical scope of the consultation is England and Wales, mirroring that of the Serious Violence Strategy. The Welsh Government and Public Health Wales support in principle the intention to improve early intervention and prevention for serious violence through a ‘public health’ preventative approach. To ensure that the response to the consultation is effective in a Welsh context the UK and Welsh Governments will work together to reflect the different policy and legislative requirements in Wales, with particular alignment to those functions which are devolved, namely: health; social services; housing and education. Justice and policing are non-devolved functions within Wales, however, the following Wales specific legislative orders have a direct impact on the delivery of justice services:

• The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
• The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015
• The Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015
• The Welsh Language Act 1993

In response to the consultation, the UK and Welsh Governments will work together to consider any implications for resource, budgets and functions.

In Wales, the All-Wales Serious Violence Working Group chaired by Public Health Wales already provides a multi-agency context through which a public health approach is being applied to serious violence and to take forward the commitments set out within the Serious Violence Strategy. This consultation will take into account the ongoing priorities of this group and its members.

The consultation is open to everyone. However, we are particularly interested in hearing from those with expertise in working with young people at risk of criminal involvement and/or re-offending or victimisation, those involved in law enforcement and, more generally, the communities affected by serious violence, including the voluntary and community sector. This includes relevant professionals, such as those working in social care, education, law enforcement, local government, community safety, youth services, offender management, victims’ services, public health and healthcare. In recognition of multi-agency approaches outside England and Wales, we would also welcome responses from across the UK.

Introduction

On 2 October 2018, the Home Secretary announced major new measures to tackle violent crime. Firstly, a new £200 million Youth Endowment Fund which will be delivered over 10 years and support interventions with children and young people at risk of involvement in crime and violence. Secondly, an independent review of drug misuse which goes to the heart of addressing the root causes of serious violence. And thirdly, this consultation on a new legal duty to support a multi-agency approach to prevent and tackle serious violence and to address its root causes.

The Serious Violence Strategy

The measures outlined by the Home Secretary build on the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy (the Strategy), published in April 2018. The Strategy outlines an ambitious programme of work to tackle the deadly cycle of violence that devastates the lives of individuals, families and communities. The Strategy represents a step change in the way we think about and respond to serious violence, establishing a new balance between prevention and law enforcement.

Our approach depends not only on the vital work of law enforcement but also on harnessing the value of cross-sector partnerships including education, health, social services, housing, youth services and victim services in tackling serious violence. The Strategy includes the Early Intervention Youth Fund which encourages partnership working between Police and Crime Commissioners and Community Safety Partnerships (or their equivalents) by providing funding to support early intervention and prevention activity with children and young people.

The Strategy was in response to rises in knife crime, gun crime and homicide. The Strategy shows these rises are being driven by male on male offending alongside a shift to youth offending. We know that whilst the rises are national, particular communities are being disproportionately impacted by this violence, especially in urban areas.

There are a range of factors likely to be driving the rises in serious violence, most notably changes in the drugs market. For example, there has been an increase in crack cocaine use since 2014 and the growth of county lines in which drug‑selling gangs from major urban areas, like London, Birmingham and Liverpool have sought to exploit markets in other areas to supply drugs. There is some evidence that social media can also drive and escalate violence.

The Strategy outlines what we know about the different risk factors that can impact on an individual’s vulnerability and susceptibility to becoming a victim or perpetrator of serious violence. These risk factors include domestic abuse, truancy, school exclusions and substance abuse. The Strategy also sets out the evidence and support for targeted interventions that can help mitigate and protect children and young people against these factors.

It is with this in mind that a duty to prevent and tackle serious violence should reinforce an emphasis on early intervention and prevention with young people.

This approach will be underpinned by an additional £100 million funding in 2019/20, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13 March 2019, to help, the police’s immediate response to the rise in serious knife crime, enabling priority forces to put in place the additional capacity they need. The funding will also be invested in Violence Reduction Units in areas of England and Wales most affected by knife crime. The new units will bring together a range of agencies including health, education, social services and others, to develop a multi-agency approach in preventing serious violence altogether.

What do we mean by Serious Violence?

When we talk about serious violence we refer to the scope of the Serious Violence Strategy. The Strategy is particularly concerned with specific types of crime including homicide, knife crime, and gun crime and areas of criminality where serious violence or its threat is inherent, such as in county lines drug dealing.

Serious violence also extends to other forms of serious assault. We know that a significant proportion of violence is linked to either domestic abuse or alcohol, but these two important elements are not driving the increases we are seeing in violent crime. That is why they were not the focus of the Strategy. The Strategy does not address sexual abuse, modern slavery or violence against women and girls. They can all involve forms of serious violence but there are already specific strategies addressing those important issues, and so they are not included within the scope of this work.

What is a ‘public health’ approach?

We need to take a multi-agency approach to understand the causes and consequences of serious violence, focused on prevention and early intervention, and informed by evidence and rigorous evaluation of interventions. This is often referred to as a ‘public health’ approach. This requires a range of bodies and organisations to work together to tackle this issue including law enforcement agencies, education partners, local authorities, offender management services including youth offending services and health care and public health professionals taking joint action. We would also expect those partners to look for opportunities to draw in support and wider expertise in their communities, including those in the voluntary and charitable sector.

The World Health Organization has advocated for a ‘public health approach’ to be taken to violence. Briefly summarised, the approach it advocates is:

• Focused on a defined population, often with a health risk in common;
• With and for communities;
• Not constrained by organisational or professional boundaries;
• Focussed on generating long term as well as short term solutions;
• Based on data and intelligence to identify the burden on the population, including any inequalities;
• Rooted in evidence of effectiveness to tackle the problem.

A multi-agency preventative approach, as outlined above, is already being taken forward through the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy. However, to reinforce this, we are consulting on underpinning this approach with a statutory duty on relevant partners and agencies.

A multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence

There are a range of multi-agency models preventing and tackling serious violence. They work through bringing together relevant agencies for collaboration and mutually informed decision making.

In the UK, a multi-agency preventative approach to serious violence has become closely associated with the work of the Violence Reduction Unit in Scotland. The Scottish Government supports this central unit that leads on bringing together partners on preventative collaborative projects.

In Wales, in 2018, Public Health, Policing and Criminal Justice partners signed a partnership agreement to work together in driving action which brings about system-wide change, improving the quality of life, well-being and safety of people living in Wales. Welsh Government, the Home Office and the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales supported the principles of the agreement and the ambition of partners to work together collaboratively to bring about system-wide change and integrated service delivery in order to better serve families and communities across Wales.

The partnership in Wales recognises that policing and public health are intimately related; the Police are the first responders to a range of complex situations involving criminal, civil or public health related issues. The Welsh Government knows from feedback from the four Welsh forces that currently the majority of police time in Wales is spent in responding to complex social issues, particularly focusing on health and well-being more so than crime, therefore taking a public health approach provides an effective framework to enable prevention and early intervention.

The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 requires multi-agency working to address the root causes of issues such as serious violence through prioritising prevention, collaboration, integration, long term planning and involvement. These are known as the five ways of working which are fundamental to the legislation and applying a public health approach, which all devolved public services in Wales are mandated to follow:

a) Prevention - understanding the root causes of issues and where appropriate, investing in effective upstream interventions;

b) Collaboration - acting in collaboration with others to identify shared priorities, and opportunities for pooled budgets and joint resources;

c) Involvement - engaging and involving partners and the diversity of individuals affected by our decision making;

d) Integration - considering how decision making may impact upon each of the well-being goals;

e) A long-term focus - balancing short and long-term needs, ensuring sustainability and future proofing.

The public health approach in Wales promotes the use of robust research and evidence to inform and test solutions drawing on the multi-agency perspectives and assets of wider partners to most usefully contribute towards shared priorities. It is important to make this distinction as part of this consultation process.

The examples of Scotland and Wales demonstrate how a multi-agency preventative approach can be applied in the UK, with health, education, law enforcement and local authorities working in concert to prevent violence. It is also being adopted in parts of England. For example, there is multi-disciplinary Violence Reduction Unit being established in London to lead and deliver a long-term public health approach to tackling the causes of violent crime.

Partnerships

There are a range of multi-agency partnerships already in place in England and Wales that can play an important role in preventing and tackling serious violence. We have summarised some of the key partnerships below. However, other multi-agency arrangements exist at national, regional and local level that bring together some of the same partners.

In response to this consultation, we would be interested in views about how any new duty could be embedded into existing partnerships leading on safeguarding or Community Safety Partnerships.

Community Safety Partnerships

Community Safety Partnerships, formerly known as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, were established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to help tackle crime and reduce reoffending. There are around 300 Community Safety Partnerships in England and 22 in Wales , usually at district or unitary authority level.

Community Safety Partnerships are made up of representatives from ‘responsible authorities’ including: police, probation service, local authorities, health, fire and rescue authorities who are responsible for developing strategies for reducing crime and offending in their areas. There has also been a mutual duty on Police and Crime Commissioners and Community Safety Partnerships to cooperate on reducing crime and offending since 2011.^{[footnote 1]}

The responsible authorities have a statutory duty to work together to: reduce re-offending; tackle crime and disorder; tackle anti-social behaviour; tackle alcohol and substance misuse; and tackle any other behaviour which has a negative effect on the local environment. Community Safety Partnerships may also work with any other local partners they wish to, including business representatives and the voluntary and community sector.

In carrying out their statutory duties, Community Safety Partnerships also have further obligations including: setting up a strategic group to direct the work of the partnership; to regularly engage and consult with the community about their priorities and progress achieving them; to set up protocols and systems for sharing information; analyse a wide range of data, including recorded crime levels and patterns, in order to identify priorities in an annual strategic assessment; set out a partnership plan and monitor progress; produce a strategy to reduce reoffending; and commission domestic violence homicide reviews.

Community Safety Partnerships and their equivalents already have a very important role to play in preventing and tackling serious violence and there are some examples of good practice in this context. For example, in both Bedfordshire and Essex, community partners are working together to understand that a crucial part of tackling county lines is to reduce the growing demand for class A drugs. However, it is recognised that Community Safety Partnerships are stronger in some areas than others, and this variation can impact on the effectiveness of some Community Safety Partnerships in tackling violent crime.

Safeguarding

The approach to safeguarding in England provides a helpful example of multi-agency working. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 effectively abolished Local Safeguarding Children Boards, removing the Children Act 2004 duties relating to them. In their place, it gives greater autonomy to three key ‘safeguarding partners’ - the local authority, any Clinical Commissioning Groups operating in the area and the Chief Officer of Police - to provide strategic leadership and make safeguarding arrangements that respond to the needs of all children in their area.

Their main responsibilities are:

• To publish their local safeguarding arrangements;
• To arrange for independent scrutiny of their local safeguarding arrangements;
• To collaborate with ‘relevant agencies’ in their area;
• To identify and supervise the review of serious safeguarding cases in their area, and embed any learning;
• To publish a report every 12 months on what they and the relevant agencies have done as a result of the local safeguarding arrangements and how effective the arrangements have been in practice.

Given the flexibility available for safeguarding partnerships in the way they operate, the Government has been working with a range of local areas (Early Adopters) to pilot approaches and highlight best practice.

Serious Organised Crime Partnerships

Serious Organised Crime Partnership Boards were introduced through the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy in 2013. The partnerships are made up of representatives drawn from a range of public, private and voluntary sector organisations, including police, local authorities, health and education bodies.

Membership of the partnership is on a voluntary basis and they are led by the police force or local authority in the relevant area. Each police force area currently has a Serious Organised Crime Partnership Board, though there are differing sizes and structures across England and Wales, reflecting the requirements, geography, and political structures of the area.

Health and Wellbeing Boards

Health and Wellbeing Boards in England are another example of multi-agency working arrangements. Health and Wellbeing Boards bring into one forum representatives from health, social services and the local community. They determine the main health and public health needs of the local population and how best to meet them in an integrated and holistic way. Local communities need to be consulted and the strategies should include the particular needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups as well as wider social, environmental and economic factors which might impact on health and wellbeing.

Health and Wellbeing Boards have a statutory duty to encourage the integrated delivery of health and social care to advance the health and wellbeing of people in their area. They have a significant role to play in joining up the health and care system and driving integration for example, through their role in approving Better Care Fund plans that are jointly agreed by the NHS and local government. They are responsible for the development of a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy. The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy must be taken into account by local authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups and NHS England when preparing or revising commissioning plans.

Health and Wellbeing Boards can play a significant role in preventing and tackling violence, in collaboration with Community Safety Partnerships and other local partners.

The case and our vision for a duty to support a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence

Tackling serious violence is not only a law enforcement issue, as we need a multi-agency approach involving a range of partners and agencies such as education, health, social services, housing, youth and victim services. It is also vital that public agencies work in partnership with the voluntary and community sector to develop targeted interventions in local communities. Action should be guided by evidence of the problems and what works in tackling their root causes. To do this, we must bring organisations together to share information, data and intelligence and encourage them to work in concert rather than in isolation.

The existing models of partnership demonstrate a range of multi-agency approaches that can and do contribute to preventing and tackling serious violence. However, the approach and success of these arrangements is mixed for a range of reasons. In some instances, this is due to competing priorities but in others it’s because multi-agency partnerships are not strong enough and important elements such as data sharing and intelligence are lacking or absent.

Our vision is to ensure agencies are focussed on and accountable for preventing and tackling serious violence. It is important that any duty provides tangible benefits to the public and aids relevant agencies and partners to make effective decisions. Such a duty should create the conditions for relevant agencies and partners to collaborate and communicate regularly to share information and take effective coordinated action in their local areas.

We would expect a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence to involve:

• Different organisations working together through (existing) partnerships to prevent and tackle serious violence as a priority.
• Consulting with communities, especially those most affected, and young people.
• Regular sharing between agencies of data and intelligence to prevent and tackle serious violence and identify those most at risk of becoming affected by serious violence. *Using that information on people or groups vulnerable to becoming affected by serious violence and those geographical areas where violence is most likely to occur, to develop a programme of early interventions.
• Partnerships un-constrained by organisational, professional or geographical boundaries.
• Partners working together to agree joint funding for services to prevent and tackle serious violence.
• Using evidence including relevant evaluations to inform decision-making.
• Organisations being held accountable for their work on serious violence, including being subject to inspections either by their relevant inspectorates, or possibly through joint inspections.

We consider that the proposed statutory duty should focus specifically on preventing and tackling serious violence within the scope of the Serious Violence Strategy. We recognise that there are many other types of criminal offences that are of a specific concern, but we believe that serious violence requires a particularly explicit focus because of its high harm to society including fatalities and the serious physical and psychological injuries it inflicts, as well as the fear its threat causes in communities. It is clear that preventative initiatives provide wider benefits across society, including reduced crime but also better health, wellbeing, education and employment outcomes. It is also the case that an effective response to serious violence needs different organisations working together.

Q: Do you agree that the vision and focus for a multi-agency approach to preventing

and tackling serious violence is correct? If not, please explain why.

The proposals

Options to support a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence

We have identified three options for achieving our vision of an effective multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence and welcome your views: two require legislative change; and the other option is based on closer, voluntary working together. We are clear that we want agencies to be coordinating, designing and prioritising their efforts on serious violence, and that introducing a new statutory duty could help achieve that consistently across the country. However, we need to be clear that any duty has only the intended consequence and does not distract from delivering the primary objective of reducing serious violence. We need your responses to be clear about the potential costs and benefits associated with each of the proposed options.

We are not proposing that new partnerships are established to specifically deal with serious violence. Wherever possible, existing partnerships and structures should be used to bring relevant organisations together. The difference will be the new shared focus for partner organisations to prevent and tackle serious violence.

Option One: New duty on specific organisations to have due regard to the prevention and tackling of serious violence

As set out in the vision, it is clear that although some partnerships work well in tackling serious violence, in others there are gaps in performance in terms of competing priorities, strength of partnership, and/or a lack or absence of important elements such as data sharing and intelligence. If we are to successfully deal with this issue we must ensure that all relevant agencies are focussed on and accountable for preventing and tackling serious violence and that is why a new duty is an important means of achieving our vision.

This is the Government’s preferred option. Under this option we would propose to introduce a new duty through new primary legislation. We would legislate to place a new duty on specific organisations to have due regard to the prevention and tackling of serious violence.

The list of specific organisations would include local authorities, senior figures in criminal justice institutions, education, child care institutions, health and social care bodies and the police. This could reflect those organisations set out in Schedule 6 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The full list is set out in Annex A. We would welcome views on whether any other organisations or bodies should be included in this list, for example Fire and Rescue Authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups. In addition, we would welcome views on whether the organisations are captured at the optimum level. For example, should the duty be placed on local authorities or the specific functions in respect of which local authorities are responsible, such as Public Health or Trading Standards authorities.

We envisage that each body subject to the new duty would determine for themselves how they would address and comply with a duty to have due regard to tackling and preventing serious violence. However, the Government would publish guidance to help specified agencies to comply with the new duty. It is anticipated that this approach would not impose new functions on the agencies specified but would ensure that those agencies placed an appropriate and proportionate weight on preventing and tackling serious violence whilst carrying out their pre-existing functions. However, agencies are asked to provide information on impact as part of this consultation and a full cost assessment will be undertaken on the preferred option as part of the Government response to this consultation, including any burden on local authorities, or education, health or criminal justice sectors.

It would not necessitate a specific multi-agency setting but would act to encourage and improve partnership working and information sharing. The relevant inspectorates covering the organisations subject to the duty or joint inspections may be able to check how far they are complying with the new duty, or, in respect of democratically elected authorities, held to account by their electorates.

This option has the advantage in that it places a new duty on relevant organisations but leaves it to them to decide how best to comply. It therefore provides flexibility, but the logic of such a duty should mean that the relevant organisations will engage and work together in the most effective local partnership in that area.

Possible disadvantages to this option include too much variation between local areas which could mean some areas become less effective than others. There could also be the risk that, without a specified partnership body, the leadership of any given partnership could be difficult to broker between agencies and that the partnership’s work and its success will be opaque and difficult to monitor. The requirement for primary legislation would also mean this option might be slower to implement than options 2 and 3 because it would be subject to finding Parliamentary time and approval in due course.

Q - Do you consider that Option One would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

Q – Do you consider the specific agencies listed in Schedule 6 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 the right partners to achieve the consultation vision? If not, please explain why.

Option Two: New duty through legislating to revise Community Safety Partnerships

As set out earlier, there are existing multi-agency arrangements that bring together different organisations and bodies to prevent and tackle crime, in particular, Community Safety Partnerships. We are interested in whether a new duty to prevent and tackle serious violence can be introduced through legislating to amend Community Safety Partnerships to ensure they have a strategy for preventing and tackling serious violence.

One of the key challenges to overcome is to ensure that Community Safety Partnership members are drawn from suitable, relevant agencies, i.e. those with access to the necessary information about people vulnerable to being affected by serious violence and have competence for decision making to deliver preventative action. Issues of geography would also be a factor, ensuring that the jurisdictions of the relevant partners are suitably aligned and that the scope of the partnership is sufficient to address local priorities but also have the ability and potential to reach a sizeable population.

We will need to ensure that Community Safety Partnership membership and links to other partners and partnerships reflect the range of organisations that need to be involved in tackling and preventing serious violence. For example, considering whether existing membership such as the health sector is captured at the most appropriate level (currently Clinical Commissioning Groups) or whether it should be widened. In addition, whether new members should be added to Community Safety Partnerships or the relationship with other partners should be reconsidered. This could include those organisations listed in [Schedule 6 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/schedule/6/enacted) that are not already ‘responsible authorities’ in Community Safety Partnerships.

This option differs from option one as it directly commits organisations to become members of a partnership (in this case, the Community Safety Partnership) rather than requiring organisations to have “due regard” to preventing and tackling serious violence. This has the benefit of the clarity of legislating for Community Safety Partnerships becoming the lead partnership in fulfilling this key mission against serious violence. However, it is recognised that Community Safety Partnerships are stronger in some areas than others, and this variation may initially impact on the effectiveness of some Community Safety Partnerships in tackling violent crime. In addition, the geographical reach of Community Safety Partnerships might mean they are not the optimum partnership model. For example, in some police force areas, there are more than 10 Community Safety Partnerships which means that decision making could be more effective at a higher strategic level or through a different partnerships arrangement. It will be important that Community Safety Partnerships have strong and effective links with other multi-agency partnerships and work across their organisational, professional and geographical boundaries.

Q- Do you consider that Option 2 would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

Q- Should the list of Statutory Partners in Community Safety Partnerships be added to so that they can adequately prevent and tackle serious violence in local areas? If so, what organisations?

Option Three: A voluntary non-legislative approach

The third option is to encourage areas to adopt voluntary measures to engage in a multi-agency approach instead of, or to complement introducing a new statutory duty. This would mean a range of organisations would recognise they have an important role to play in preventing and tackling serious violence.

Under this approach, the Government would continue to bring its convening power to bear, to bring together the range of organisations and partners that are integral to an effective multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence. This will build on measures under the Strategy such as our ongoing programme of engagement events including community safety partners and the voluntary and community sector. In doing so, the Government would support communities and local partnerships by facilitating the sharing of best practice across geographical boundaries and providing guidance where appropriate.

The Violence Reduction Unit in Scotland is a national centre of expertise on violence and as part of Police Scotland, has adopted a public health approach to serious violence. The Violence Reduction Unit has done so without specific statutory duties on different partners but has instead done so by working with health and education practitioners to spread awareness. It has also emphasised the importance of identifying and intervening at those times likely to make optimum impact. The Violence Reduction Unit provides leadership on tackling serious violence, employing tough law enforcement tactics, such as stop and search campaigns, and working with partners on preventative early interventions. The Violence Reduction Unit provides training for practitioners in partner agencies to ensure they are informed about serious violence prevention and able to spot and feedback opportunities for intervention.

In London, the Mayor announced in September 2018, the introduction of a multi-disciplinary Violence Reduction Unit which will provide London with greater capacity, expertise and coordination to identify the major causes of violence and deliver early interventions to help prevent the spread of violence. The goals of the Violence Reduction Unit are to: stabilise and reduce violence across London; find the major causes of violence, and co-ordinate action across London to tackle them at scale, delivering a long-term reduction in crime and associated harms; and involve communities in the work of the Violence Reduction Unit, and build their capacity to deliver the best long-term solutions to reduce violence.

Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement on 13 March for an additional £100 million funding in 2019/20 to tackle serious violence, we will be investing in Violence Reduction Units in areas of England and Wales most affected by knife crime. The new units will bring together a range of agencies including health, education, social services and others, to develop a multi-agency approach in preventing serious violence altogether.

In Wales, through the Police Transformation Fund, the Home Office is supporting police forces to develop new models for preventative policing. Around £7 million has been awarded to the four police forces in Wales, who in collaboration with Public Health Wales are testing a new approach to policing, which prevents and mitigates adverse childhood experiences. This aims to develop a trauma informed and integrated policing model, which will focus on ensuring that the police are better equipped to understand and then address the impact of adverse childhood experiences on both perpetrators and victims of serious violence. In addition, it addresses the lack of early intervention and preventative activity and provides the opportunity to bring partners together to change the way that vulnerable people are supported to develop a multi-agency approach to provide the full range of support that individuals need.

A voluntary approach such as this would rely on someone taking a leadership role to drive forward work preventing serious violence and bringing together different local partners. As with Option 1, this has the advantage of allowing local areas to manage themselves to best meet local needs. However, in the absence of a specific duty on serious violence, this may mean that serious violence is not treated with the appropriate level of priority and that some local areas would be more effective than others.

Q- Do you consider that Option Three would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

Q- What other measures could support such a voluntary multi-agency approach to tackling serious violence, including how we ensure join up between different agencies?

ANNEX A

Counter Terrorism & Security Act 2015 – Schedule 6 Specified Authorities

Local government

• A county council or district council in England.
• The Greater London Authority.
• A London borough council.
• The Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority.
• The Council of the Isles of Scilly.
• A county council or county borough council in Wales.
• A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.

Criminal justice

• The governor of a prison in England and Wales (or, in the case of a contracted out prison, its director).
• The governor of a young offender institution or secure training centre (or, in the case of a contracted out young offender institution or secure training centre, its director).
• The principal of a secure college.
• A provider of probation services within the meaning given by section 3(6) of the Offender Management Act 2007.

Education, child care etc

• A person who is authorised by virtue of an order made under section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to exercise a function specified in Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996.
• A person with whom arrangements have been made for the provision of education under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 or section 100 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (cases of illness, exclusion etc).
• The proprietor of—

(a) a school that has been approved under section 342 of the Education Act 1996,

(b) a maintained school within the meaning given by section 20(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998,

(c) a maintained nursery school within the meaning given by section 22(9) of that Act,

(d) an independent school registered under section 158 of the Education Act 2002,

(e) an independent educational institution registered under section 95(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008, or

(f) an alternative provision Academy within the meaning given by section 1C of the Academies Act 2010.

• A person who is specified or nominated in a direction made in relation to the exercise of a local authority’s functions given by the Secretary of State under section 497A of the Education Act 1996 (including that section as applied by section 50 of the Children Act 2004 or section 15 of the Childcare Act 2006).
• A person entered on a register kept by HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
• The governing body of a qualifying institution within the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004.
• The provider of education or training—

(a) to which Chapter 3 of Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 applies, and

(b) in respect of which funding is provided by, or under arrangements made by, the Secretary of State or the Chief Executive of Skills Funding.

• A person registered under Chapter 2, 2A, 3 or 3A of Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 or under section 20 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1).
• A body corporate with which a local authority has entered into arrangements under Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008.
• A person who is specified in a direction made in relation to the exercise of a local authority’s functions given by the Welsh Ministers under section 25 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 (anaw 1) (including that section as applied by section 50A of the Children Act 2004 or section 29 of the Childcare Act 2006).
• The governing body of an educational establishment maintained by a local authority in Wales.
• The governing body or proprietor of an institution (not otherwise listed) at which more than 250 students, excluding students undertaking distance learning courses, are undertaking—

(a) courses in preparation for examinations related to qualifications regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation or the Welsh Government;

(b) courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).

Health and social care

• An NHS Trust established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.
• An NHS foundation trust within the meaning given by section 30 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
• A Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.
• A Community Health Council in Wales.
• The Board of Community Health Councils in Wales or Bwrdd Cynghorau Iechyd Cymuned Cymru.

Police

• A chief officer of police for a police area in England and Wales.
• The British Transport Police Force.
• A Port Police Force established under an order made under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964.
• The Port Police Force established under Part 10 of the Port of London Act 1968.
• A Port Police Force established under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.
• The Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority.
• A police and crime commissioner established under section 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
• The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime established under section 3 of that Act.
• The Civil Nuclear Police Authority.

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is divided into three parts:

• Part 1: General questions covering your organisation and background, your geographical location and the partners you might work with.
• Part 2: Questions about your current work in serious violence
• Part 3: Questions posed in the body of the consultation document
• Part 4: Questions about the consultation options and their possible impact.

We would be grateful for answers to any or all of the questions asked based on their relevance to you or the organisation you work for.

Part 1: General questions

1. What sector does your agency/organisation represent?

• Criminal Justice
• Education and child care
• Health and social care
• Local government
• Police
• Voluntary and community sector
• Other, please specify:

1. Is your agency/organisation part of or does it work with any existing multi-agency partnership such as a Community Safety Partnership (CSP)?

• Yes, please specify the nature of the partnership:
• No

1. Where is your agency/organisation based?

• North East
• North West
• Yorkshire and the Humber
• East Midlands
• West Midlands
• East of England
• London
• South East
• South West
• Wales
• Scotland
• Northern Ireland

1. What agencies/organisations do you work closely with to prevent and tackle serious violence in your area? Multiple answers possible.

• Criminal Justice
• Education and child care
• Health and social care
• Local government
• Police
• Voluntary and community sector
• Other, please specify:
• None of the above; my agency/organisation does not operate in the area of serious violence

Part 2: Current work in the area of serious violence

5. Does your agency/organisation currently have activities in place to prevent/tackle serious violence?

• Yes. Please continue with question 6.
• No. Please go to question 7.

6. [If answered ‘yes’ in question 5] If you are currently working in an agency/organisation with an interest in serious violence:

6.1. What kind of activity do you undertake in preventing and tackling serious violence? Multiple answers possible.

• Early intervention activities. Please provide a short description of these activities:
• Activities targeting victims. Please provide a short description of these activities:
• Activities targeting offenders. Please provide a short description of these activities:
• Activities targeting crime locations. Please provide a short description of these activities:
• Other, please specify:

Questions 6.2 to 6.4 relate to the activities you listed in question 6.1.

6.2. How much of your agency/organisation’s time/resources is currently spent on these activities in terms of:

• … Full Time Equivalents (per year)
• … Volunteer time (hours per week)
• … Volunteer time (hours per month)
• … Volunteer time (hours per year)

6.3. Please specify the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in your agency/organisation involved in these activities by role/rank. Multiple answers possible.

• Police officer (sergeant and below)
• Police community support officer
• Prison service officer (below principal officer)
• Senior police officer
• Senior officer in fire, ambulance, prison or related services
• Nurse
• Paramedic
• Medical practitioner
• Health services and public health manager or director
• Health care practice manager
• Social worker
• Probation officer
• Youth or community worker
• Child and early years officer
• Housing officer
• Care worker
• Social services manager or director
• Property, housing or estate manager
• Primary or nursery education teaching professional
• Secondary education teaching professional
• Special needs education teaching professional
• Senior professionals of educational establishments
• Science and research professional
• Other, not listed above, please specify:

6.4. What other costs (e.g. equipment, IT, overhead costs) are associated with your work preventing and tackling serious violence? Please estimate the cost where possible. Open question.

7. [If answered ‘no’ in question 5] If you currently do not have activities in place to prevent/tackle serious violence, what activities do you feel would be beneficial to address serious violence in your area? Open question.

Part 3: Questions posed in the body of consultation document

8. Do you agree that the vision and focus for a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence is correct? If not, please explain why.

9. Do you consider that Option One would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

10. Do you consider the specific agencies listed in Schedule 6 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 the right partners to achieve the consultation vision? If not, please explain why.

11. Do you consider that Option two would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

12. Should the list of Statutory Partners in Community Safety Partnerships be added to so that they can adequately prevent and tackle serious violence in local areas? If so, what organisations?

13. Do you consider that Option Three would best achieve the consultation vision? Please explain why.

14. What other measures could support such a voluntary multi-agency approach to tackling serious violence, including how we ensure join up between different agencies?

Part 4: Questions about the consultation options and their possible impact

Option One: New duty on specific organisations to have due regard to the prevention and tackling of serious violence

15.How much additional time/resource would be required by your agency/organisation to implement and carry forward the proposed option in terms of:

• … Full Time Equivalents (per year)
• … Volunteer time (hours per week)
• … Volunteer time (hours per month)
• … Volunteer time (hours per year)

16.Please specify the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in your agency/organisation involved in these activities by role/rank. Multiple answers possible.

• Police officer (sergeant and below)
• Police community support officer
• Prison service officer (below principal officer)
• Senior police officer
• Senior officer in fire, ambulance, prison or related services
• Nurse
• Paramedic
• Medical practitioner
• Health services and public health manager or director
• Health care practice manager
• Social worker
• Probation officer
• Youth or community worker
• Child and early years officer
• Housing officer
• Care worker
• Social services manager or director
• Property, housing or estate manager
• Primary or nursery education teaching professional
• Secondary education teaching professional
• Special needs education teaching professional
• Senior professionals of educational establishments
• Science and research professional
• Other, not listed above, please specify:

17.Are there any other costs (e.g. equipment, IT, overhead costs) you can foresee under the proposed option? Please estimate the cost where possible. Open question.

18.What, if any, benefits do you envisage under the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Reduction of pressure upon time
• Less resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Improved organisational processes
• Improved collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Improved outcomes for victims
• Improved outcomes for offenders
• A more consistent approach in preventing and tackling serious violence at the local level
• Reductions in serious violent crime
• Other, please specify:

19.What, if any, disadvantages do you foresee arising from the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Increased time pressures on your organisation
• Increased resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Worsening of organisational processes
• Issues around collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Poor outcomes for victims/offenders
• Local variation in preventing and tackling serious violence
• Diversion of spending/resource away from other areas
• Other, please specify:

Option Two: New duty through legislating to revise Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs)

20.How much additional time/resource would be required by your agency/organisation to implement and carry forward the proposed option in terms of:

• … Full Time Equivalents (per year)
• … Volunteer time (hours per week)
• … Volunteer time (hours per month)
• … Volunteer time (hours per year)

21.Please specify the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in your agency/organisation involved in these activities by role/rank. Multiple answers possible.

• Police officer (sergeant and below)
• Police community support officer
• Prison service officer (below principal officer)
• Senior police officer
• Senior officer in fire, ambulance, prison or related services
• Nurse
• Paramedic
• Medical practitioner
• Health services and public health manager or director
• Health care practice manager
• Social worker
• Probation officer
• Youth or community worker
• Child and early years officer
• Housing officer
• Care worker
• Social services manager or director
• Property, housing or estate manager
• Primary or nursery education teaching professional
• Secondary education teaching professional
• Special needs education teaching professional
• Senior professionals of educational establishments
• Science and research professional
• Other, not listed above, please specify:

22.Are there any other costs (e.g. equipment, IT, overhead costs) you can foresee under the proposed option? Open question.

23.What, if any, benefits do you envisage under the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Reduction of pressure upon time
• Less resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Improved organisational processes
• Improved collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Improved outcomes for victims
• Improved outcomes for offenders
• A more consistent approach in preventing and tackling serious violence at the local level
• Reductions in serious violent crime
• Other, please specify:

24.What, if any, disadvantages do you foresee arising from the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Increased time pressures on your organisation
• Increased resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Worsening of organisational processes
• Issues around collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Poor outcomes for victims/offenders
• Local variation in preventing and tackling serious violence
• Diversion of spending/resource away from other areas
• Other, please specify:

Option Three: A Voluntary Non-legislative approach

25.How much additional time/resource would be required by your agency/organisation to implement and carry forward the proposed option in terms of:

• … Full Time Equivalents (per year)
• … Volunteer time (hours per week)
• … Volunteer time (hours per month)
• … Volunteer time (hours per year)

26.Please specify the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in your agency/organisation involved in these activities by role/rank. Multiple answers possible.

• Police officer (sergeant and below)
• Police community support officer
• Prison service officer (below principal officer)
• Senior police officer
• Senior officer in fire, ambulance, prison or related services
• Nurse
• Paramedic
• Medical practitioner
• Health services and public health manager or director
• Health care practice manager
• Social worker
• Probation officer
• Youth or community worker
• Child and early years officer
• Housing officer
• Care worker
• Social services manager or director
• Property, housing or estate manager
• Primary or nursery education teaching professional
• Secondary education teaching professional
• Special needs education teaching professional
• Senior professionals of educational establishments
• Science and research professional
• Other, not listed above, please specify:

27.Are there any other costs (e.g. equipment, IT, overhead costs) you can foresee under the proposed option? Please estimate the cost where possible. Open question.

28.What, if any, benefits do you envisage under the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Reduction of pressure upon time
• Less resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Improved organisational processes
• Improved collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Improved outcomes for victims
• Improved outcomes for offenders
• A more consistent approach in preventing and tackling serious violence at the local level
• Reductions in serious violent crime
• Other, please specify:

29.What, if any, disadvantages do you foresee arising from the proposed option? Multiple answers possible.

• Increased time pressures on your organisation
• Increased resources or costs to your agency/organisation
• Worsening of organisational processes
• Issues around collaboration with other agencies/organisations
• Poor outcomes for victims/offenders
• Local variation in preventing and tackling serious violence
• Diversion of spending/resource away from other areas
• Other, please specify:

Final questions relating to all options, for all respondents

30.How can the organisations subject to any duty or voluntary response be best held to account?

• Through inspections (joint or by individual inspectorates)

• Other, please specify:

31.Aside from your answers given in previous sections, are there any other considerations that you would like to raise regarding one or more of the proposed options? Open question.

Thank you for participating in this consultation.

About you

Please use this section to tell us about yourself.

Full name
Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (for example, member of the public)
Date
Company name/organisation (if applicable)
Address
Postcode
If you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response, please tick this box
Address to which the acknowledgement should be sent, if different from above

If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.

Contact details and how to respond

To help analyse the responses please submit your response by 28/05/19 using the online form.

If, for exceptional reasons, you are unable to use the online system, for example because you use specialist accessibility software that is not compatible with the system, you may download a Word document version of the form and email it or post it to:

Serious Violence Legal Duty Consultation
Home Office
Serious Violence Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Tel: 0207 035 8303

Email: SVLegalDutyConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Extra copies

Further paper copies of this consultation can be obtained from this address and it is also available online.

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from: SVLegalDutyConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk or Tel: 0207 035 8303

Publication of response

A paper summarising the responses to this consultation will be published within 12 weeks of the closing date of this consultation. The response paper will be available online.

Representative groups

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Home Office.

The Home Office will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.

1. Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. ↩