Serious violence legal duty consultation (accessible version)

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:

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:

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:

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, 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.

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 Her Majesty’s 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:

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?

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.

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.

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:

Tel: 0207 035 8303

Email: SVLegalDutyConsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk

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

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.