Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour

12.00.00am GMT Sat 28th Jun 2003

Annette Brooke MP

Home Affairs Spokesperson with responsibility for anti-social behaviour

I suspect that everybody reading this article will have witnessed some form of anti-social behaviour and share the view that when such behaviour goes beyond high spirits and impacts on the lives and property of others that action must be taken. Indeed in the brief debate on the third reading of the Bill, Simon Hughes said 'We are all charged with finding a way to reduce anti-social behaviour and to create a society in which greater respect is shown by one person for another.'

There are many aspects of the Government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill which are to be welcomed, including the proposals to make it easier to deal with crack houses and misuse of air weapons and imitation firearms. We have clearly supported a number of proposals throughout the Bill which is wide ranging; covering drug houses, housing, parental responsibilities, dispersal of groups, firearms and the environment.

From the time of publication of the Bill we had profound concerns about the proposed powers of dispersal. We tried to make amendments at committee stage but to no avail. A constable or a community support officer will be provided with the power to disperse people from an area if he believes that their mere presence is intimidating to members of the public and if the defined locality has a history of anti social behaviour. The test may therefore not relate to the objective behaviour of the people but to the perceptions of others and to the history of the area. Our concern, which was shared by many organisations, was supported by the recent publication of the Joint (Lords and Commons) Committee on Human Rights, 'In respect of the power to authorise dispersal of groups of people in specified localities . . ..it might be difficult to establish that the powers will or would be used only when it was proportionate to a pressing social need.'

There is also a power to return under 16 year olds home after 9pm. In respect of this power, the Committee concluded 'we are not satisfied that the measures are a proportionate response to a pressing social need, or that the safeguards provide assurance that the power would be used only where it is necessary and proportionate to protect the child. We therefore conclude there is a risk of incompatibility with European Convention on Human Rights Articles 5, 8 and 11.'

I also feel that the use of these draconian powers could have perverse consequences. Just moving young people on to other places is likely to alienate and provoke bad behaviour. I believe that we need to involve and include young people in finding solutions. I was recently told of a 'problem' with young people hanging around in a shopping centre. Work with the young people established that they were frightened of a large dog which had moved on to their territory in a nearby park! It is essential that there are activities and places for young people which at least meet some of their needs. When 'bad' behaviour does occur we need to intervene at an early stage. If solutions can't be found with a problem solving approach it might be necessary to move on to use measures such as acceptable behaviour contracts. These were pioneered successfully in Lib Dem run Islington and are now used in many areas. There is a case for anti-social behaviour orders as a measure of last resort and Liberal Democrats in Parliament have not opposed them.

The Home Secretary recently said, 'one thing that has really struck me over recent months is how little those who have the power to implement these policies know what they have at their disposal …..I found that people were not aware of what was already on the statute book. We have a major task to inform people simply and clearly about how the police and housing and environmental health officials can do their job.'

We agree with the Home Secretary. Liberal Democrats have consistently pointed out that there is a raft of existing legislation which can be used to tackle anti-social behaviour when tough action is needed, including public order offences to tackle offensive and intimidating behaviour by groups.

Our communities do need effective policing, good use of neighbourhood wardens, proactive multi agency work from local crime and disorder partnerships, and investment in youth services. The task of central government should be to provide the police and local authorities with funds adequate to that task.