---

Antisocial Behaviour

Well, there are a number of problems. First, it may be the case that the courts are not being tough enough, but they are of course under pressure not to produce custodial sentences because the Government have not planned for sufficient for prison places. Secondly, there are many offenders who should have been dealt with in the courts in the first place, rather than through this remedy. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable that such a low number of breaches are dealt with through custodial sentences, and I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Youth Justice Board report, published in November last year, claimed that"““Parents commonly argued that ASBOs functioned as a ‘badge of honour’, rather than addressing the causes of the behaviour.””" The report also found that nearly half of the young people whose case files were reviewed had been returned to court for failure to comply with their order. It is also clear from the report that young people do not understand the antisocial behaviour regime. It showed that many young people did not understand the details of the orders that were placed on them. Given the level of breaches, it is not surprising that MORI research shows a lack of public confidence in ASBOs. An Ipsos MORI research report, published in June last year, six months after the launch of the Respect action plan, found that nearly half of people think that ASBOs are not effective at stopping antisocial behaviour. In December, the Minister said:"““I don’t accept a breach of an ASBO is the failure of an ASBO.””" In that case, what constitutes success? Is it a failure if an offender breaches parole? Is it a failure if a suspect jumps bail? Is it a failure if a prisoner absconds? Why then is it a success if someone breaches an ASBO? That is plainly nonsense. The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that"““If you step out of line, the breach is enforced.””" But it is not, as we have just heard. There are a minimal number of custodial sentences for ASBO breaches. The National Audit Office report pointed out that more than half of those issued with ASBOs engaged in further acts of antisocial behaviour during their order. It is the same story with acceptable behaviour contracts, which are broken by more than 60 per cent. of those under 18. The NAO report states:"““Acceptable behaviour contracts are the most frequently used intervention for which data is available…however, contracts were less effective with people aged under 18 where just over 60 per cent. of our cases displayed further anti-social behaviour.””" The credibility of the Government’s flagship policy to deal with antisocial behaviour is severely undermined by the failure to enforce the orders. Secondly, there is the problem of evaluation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has already raised. That is surely fundamental to the effectiveness of the regime. The NAO noted:"““The absence of formal evaluation by the Home Office of the success of different interventions and of the impact of providing support services in conjunction with the interventions prevents local areas targeting interventions in the most efficient way to achieve the best outcome for the least cost.””" In December 2005, Baroness Scotland said in a written answer:"““The Home Office is conducting an evaluation of ASBOs, the findings of which will be available in spring 2006””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2005; Vol. 676, c. WA100.]" In November 2006, the Minister in the other place said:"““The qualitative aspect of the study highlighted a wide range of views on a number of issues, but there were few common themes underlying the findings. We are therefore conducting further analysis of the data...Publication is now planned for the new year.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2006; Vol. 687, c. WA37.]" So there has been a delay of well over a year for the promised evaluation of ASBOs. Extraordinarily, neither the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office nor the head of the Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, knew about that study when they were questioned by the PAC on Monday. Sir David Normington said:"““I am afraid I do not know about that.””" Louise Casey said the same. We know that the head of the Respect taskforce has a dislike of evidence-based policy making. She once infamously said that there is an obsession with evidence-based policy in No. 10. We are certainly getting used to the collective amnesia in the Home Office, but we should be able to expect that the Permanent Secretary and the head of the Respect agenda know that an evaluation of ASBOs is being conducted. That evaluation is fundamental to the ability of this House and the wider public to judge whether or not ASBOs are a success and its absence is a fundamental weakness in the Government’s case. The third concern that we have about ASBOs is whether it is right that they are applied as a civil instrument to deal with persistent offenders who should be dealt with by the courts. The NAO noted that a small core of people repeatedly engaged in antisocial behaviour. Around a fifth of its sample received more than half of all the interventions and that group had an average of 50 criminal convictions. The report also said:"““There was…a hard core of perpetrators for whom interventions had limited impact.””" It is clear that ASBOs are an ineffective and inappropriate instrument to deal with hardened criminal behaviour, and that a minority of offenders should be dealt with in the courts and properly sentenced, so that victims can be assured that action has been taken. But the Government’s approach is the opposite. It is increasingly to develop what they call summary justice, so that such cases are not dealt with in the courts. That summary justice is, increasingly, soft justice. The Sunday Telegraph recently reported that a woman who falsely accused a man of raping her was released with nothing more than a penalty notice for disorder and an £80 fine. If her story had been believed, the man she accused could have been jailed for life. If that woman had been taken to court, she could have been jailed for six months for making false rape allegations. How can it possibly have been appropriate to impose a penalty notice for disorder and a £80 fine in such circumstances? Destroying or damaging property, which in court could incur a fine of up to £2,500 or three months in prison, can now be punished with an £80 fine. Whether the fine is £80 or £100—the proposed increase—it is simply not high enough to deter a persistent criminal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has revealed, penalty notices for disorder are increasingly being used to punish shoplifting of goods under the value of £200. Nearly 22,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued for shoplifting in 2005 and nearly 17,000 in the first six months of 2006. Even if the maximum penalty is increased to £100, a shoplifter has only to get away with one in three thefts to break even or one in two to make a £100 profit. That allows shoplifters to make a substantial profit by achieving only a 50 per cent. success rate with very low risks. Paying a penalty notice for disorder is not even an admission of guilt. If a defendant pays within 21 days, they do not even get a criminal record. They are, in the words of my hon. Friend,"““little more than glorified parking tickets.””" A spokesman for the British Retail Consortium said:"““This sends the wrong message to criminals. It tells them they have a licence to steal and won’t get any serious punishment.””" Just as ASBOs are regarded as a badge of honour, some yobs, in the words of Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, see penalty notices for disorder as"““the perfect end to a day out””." To them, an instant fine is far more attractive than being taken through the court system. What is more, each penalty notice for disorder costs £91 to administer, meaning that the Government actually lose money on each one. In September last year, the sentencing policy and penalties unit in the Home Office even suggested that"““serious crimes such as assaulting a police officer and mugging””" could be made punishable by a penalty notice for disorder to keep hundreds of thousands of offenders out of court. Not surprisingly, those plans did not make it into the Government’s consultation paper on antisocial behaviour, published in November. But the suggestion alone indicates just how out of touch the Home Office is with the public. It has a strange notion of what constitutes proper justice.