Anti-Social Behaviour Bill -Westminster Hall

Speech by Annette Brooke on Sat 16th Aug 2003

Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for

Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I might not agree with everything that he said, but it would be helpful if the Minister provided the clarification that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. It is worth establishing where the confusion that undoubtedly exists lies, and how it arose.

I very much welcomed the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As hon. Members will know, I am committed to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I sincerely believe that we need local solutions for local problems. I will not bore the Chamber with my many views on that, but I am passionate about a problem-solving approach.

Interestingly, The Guardian published a large article on Saturday, as it did on three other days last week, about the war on crime. The article discussed some of the Government's policies. It concluded that there was a shift from preventative measures towards punishment. The Guardian was complimentary about the measures that were first introduced, and specifically mentioned the Crime and Disorder Act. It is important to remember that local initiatives need funding, and local priorities need to be determined locally. That is fair. Although I am in favour of certain targets, it is important that all targets mean something to the people who implement them. That sets the background for what I would like to say.

I want to put it firmly on the record that I am committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. I have been involved in a great deal of work with young people and I am committed to the idea that we must all have respect for and value one another. However, as I have said many times, we need to intervene early enough. One of my greatest fears is that young people will get on to the conveyer belt of crime, and we must try to prevent that. That does not mean that I am not protective of other people, but prevention must be high among our priorities.

I can rattle off a number of excellent Government initiatives, which I praise. I meet many people at my surgeries, and my concern is that people in my part of the world want direct draconian measures to be put in place for relatively minor situations. For example, one of my constituents is continually having his fence damaged. That is an enormous problem for him, but going straight to issuing an ASBO is not the solution. It is a difficult situation.

I want to highlight particular problems in my constituency. In the borough of Poole, there are no street wardens or neighbourhood wardens. In the eastern half of the Dorset county council area, there are no community support officers. Whatever measures are put in place, it is difficult to implement them without people on the ground or a deterrent. Dorset is probably the safest part of the country, so it is not surprising that we do not see police around in large numbers. Many people can go weeks without actually seeing a police officer. In areas such as my constituency, we need civilian support, particularly as a lot of disorder—if I can call it that—is lower-level antisocial behaviour.

I always think that we have to appreciate that ASBOs are just one weapon in the armoury, not an end in themselves. I always get distressed when I see authorities almost competing with each other to see who has the greatest number of ASBOs. That does not mean that an authority is more efficient and effective at controlling antisocial behaviour. I know that I have quoted the following example before, but it was quoted in the White Paper that preceded the

Police Reform Bill:

"In Wrexham, for example, just one order has been made, but the real measure of success is the 1,500 or so incidents that have been resolved through partnership working before an ASBO had to be used."

We must put the issue into perspective. I am in favour of a staged approach with early intervention and warnings. I am exceedingly pleased that it was the Liberal Democrat council in Islington that came up with the idea of acceptable behaviour contracts. They were, of course, a by-product of ASBOs, so everybody can take some credit.

An ASBO must be accompanied by measures to change behaviour. It seems pointless to say, "Stop, stop, stop," particularly with young people. All measures must be monitored and evaluated to see what works in a particular area.

We sometimes ask what on earth antisocial behaviour is because it is such a diverse, catch-all term. Many hon. Members have given examples related to housing, but we also face quite different issues. I am sure that my area does not have as many problems as inner-city areas represented by other hon. Members, but what I see still makes me angry. My local crime and disorder reduction partnership should be in there sorting things out and at least imposing acceptable behaviour contracts, because many neighbours are experiencing great distress, as we have heard.

In my area, there are problems with alcohol. It is a fairly affluent area. Fireworks are a huge problem, because there is plenty of money to buy them. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing his private Member's Bill. It is always a huge success for an hon. Member to introduce such a Bill, but that is particularly true when the Bill is wanted so much throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman deserves the greatest credit for introducing the Fireworks Bill, which I supported every inch of the way. In that respect, I would not like to think that I was described as being soft on antisocial behaviour.

We need effective measures, and I favour antisocial behaviour orders as a weapon of last resort.

Of course, they must sometimes be used earlier, and that seems to happen more and more in cases of really bad behaviour. I favour ASBOs over dispersal orders, which I oppose in their current form. ASBOs are targeted at an individual, and specific misbehaviour must be proved. A dispersal order applies to a group, and its use can be triggered by people's mere presence in an area rather than by their behaviour. Leaving aside the human rights issues, such orders can have perverse consequences. Moving young people on makes them think, "No one wants us round here." As a result, they may go off and do even worse things in another area. I therefore have sound reasons for opposing dispersal orders. I would prefer us to use a range of other supportive, positive and diversionary measures as part of a package to tackle antisocial behaviour.

It is interesting that the Government undertook a complete evaluation of ASBOs. I read their report when it came out in January 2002, and it contained many lessons. The conclusion states:

"The overall opinion in the areas visited was generally positive. When used effectively, ASBOs have been successful in curbing unruly behaviour, have helped rebuild the quality of life in communities and cemented good relationships both between partner agencies and between these agencies and the community."

Of course, there were reservations about delays, excessive bureaucracy and, sometimes, about the fact that partnership working was not too good. However, we can work on all those things.

Many changes were made after the evaluation, as the Government responded to earlier difficulties with ASBOs, and we now have interim ASBOs. We also have post-conviction orders, although I was rather wary about them, because it seemed that we were giving people two punishments for the same offence. However, my local police have greatly welcomed them.

ASBOs have been extended to housing associations and the British Transport police, and other extensions are included in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is coming on stream. I repeat that I would be much happier if all the agencies that could apply for ASBOs were tied into the local partnership, because the wider picture—the quality of the local environment—will not be considered unless everyone works together.

I want to give a quote from the White Paper that preceded the Police Reform Bill to highlight the important point about the debate. The White Paper states:

"In the light of these findings, the Home Office will streamline the procedures involved in obtaining an ASBO and develop a national procedure for obtaining, deploying and targeting ASBOs, backed up by the most suitable step by step warning system".

What we want to know is how good practice is being spread. What plans are in place to evaluate the effects of the changes introduced by what is now the Police Reform Act 2002? We need to consider such issues all the time, because it is not worth having a weapon that is not working particularly well.

To conduct an evaluation, I got my researcher to ring a few councils to see how they were getting on with the new measures. I shall be brief and refer to the councils by their initials, so that I do not embarrass them, but their comments were interesting. Council I has so far issued two ASBOs using the new powers in the 2002 Act; one was post-conviction, the other was an interim ASBO. That council welcomes the new powers, which have greatly facilitated the use of ASBOs. The multi-agency approach is important, but the main reason that council I has not used many is because of the success of acceptable behaviour contracts and the successful work with multiple agencies.

Council H was rather interesting—it was referred to in one of our debates on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. For various reasons, it has to date not issued any ASBOs, notably because it currently does not have a dedicated antisocial behaviour unit co-ordinator. I thought that councils had to have one; at least I recall reading that in some guidance. However, that council did not have its own housing stock, so there was a less pressing need locally. Again, it is deceptive only to quote the numbers. When, or indeed if, that council establishes a dedicated antisocial behaviour co-ordinator post, it will definitely use ASBOs more extensively.

Mr. Allen : Did the hon. Lady telephone Nottingham city council? After the Liberal Democrats' vote in Parliament against the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, the Liberal group on Nottingham city council split, and half of them became independent. Did she speak to them?

Mrs. Brooke : I certainly would have done so, had they contacted me. They would undoubtedly have understood why we voted against that Bill at that stage in the process. We are opposed to the dispersal orders, but we have never opposed ASBOs.

Briefly, council S is an interesting case. It has implemented 22 ASBOs, plus five interim ASBOs, and used acceptable behaviour contracts extensively—it had 136 in 2002-03. It has a strong multi-agency group that meets to discuss each ASBO and has not lost one yet. Each application is a rock solid case, and that sends an important message. I apologise for taking time on that, but those were quite interesting comments.

Hon. Members have referred to witnesses, and in the evaluation there is a lot of advice about witness protection and alternative ways of getting the evidence presented. What is the Minister doing to spread best practice on supporting witnesses?

This debate is about the level of proof, and I thought that I had got my head around that, but then I listened to the Minister's reply during questions on Monday. There is one issue on which I am not clear, so I should be grateful if she clarified matters. As I see the matter, there are two tests—that the individual concerned has acted in a certain manner, and that the ASBO is necessary to protect persons in that local government area from further antisocial acts. It has been suggested that the burden of proof on the first test should be to the higher civil or criminal standard, whereas the second aspect is an evaluation. However, the Minister said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that

"the orders are civil orders, and that the civil standard of evidence is therefore admissible."—[Official Report, 14 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 12.]

As a non-lawyer, I am now confused and would be grateful for some clarification on that point.

As for a breach, I am clear what the burden of proof should be and would not favour an automatic penalty—young people often go off the rails for all sorts of family reasons—because the worst scenario horrifies me.

I welcome much that the Government are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour, but we need to get the right balance between prevention and punishment. We should involve young people in solutions in the community. For example, when there is a breach, a community sentence is much better than a prison sentence, especially for a younger person. Why not let other young people determine that community sentence and what it should involve?