---

Antisocial Behaviour

As far as I can remember, we supported the alcohol disorder reduction zones, and I debated the issue with the Minister on the Floor of the House. We shall support any measures that we think will be effective and successful in dealing with the problem of binge drinking. It is the Government who have a case to answer for the relaxation they undertook, despite evidence that the problem was increasing, especially among young people. We will see whether that decision was wise. Every year there are millions of antisocial behaviour incidents, but only about 10,000 ASBOs have been issued in six years. A significant proportion of them were imposed in Greater Manchester and London, but the total for other areas is only a few hundred. The problem of antisocial behaviour is much too wide to be solved by ASBOs alone, although to be fair to the Minister, he recognised that. When I was reviewing some of the things that the public had said about antisocial behaviour, I was struck by the comments of Jill Smith of the Heartsease residents association in Norwich. She said:"““There are people on this estate with ASBOs, yet there is still a lot of crime, they do not seem to be working. For some people getting an ASBO is great. We are totally disillusioned by how crime is being dealt with around here.””" ASBOs may bring specific relief, but there is little evidence that antisocial behaviour is abating overall. The Home Office has set an arbitrary target: by 2007 or 2008, the percentage of people who feel that antisocial behaviour is a ““very”” or ““fairly”” big problem should be lower than a baseline year. The baseline year chosen is 2002-03, when the figure was 21 per cent., but the figure has never been more than that. As the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies said:"““As with the crime-related targets set by Labour, this might be an example of another target being set with little risk of it being missed.””" The perception that antisocial behaviour is a serious problem is rising again; the figure is currently 17 per cent. How effective have the Government’s frenetic interventions been? The key to a more effective approach must lie in a new focus on prevention, as well as on more effective remedial measures. As the head of the National Audit Office, Sir John Bourne, said:"““The Home Office should consider developing, and implementing further, more preventive measures to tackle causes of antisocial behaviour.””" That was, of course, an echo of the Prime Minister’s famous pledge, but as our social justice policy group report said:"““Tony Blair used to talk about tackling the causes of crime. He no longer does; instead his Government’s attitude has become reactive and short-term.””" The report pointed out that"““the majority of young offenders come from broken homes, have drug addiction and alcohol abuse habits, the academic age of a child of 11 and many of these young people have mental health problems…become members of street gangs…The increasingly ""dysfunctional society…is one that breeds criminality. To be tough on the causes of crime, the causes first have to be properly understood””." The report identified family breakdown and educational failure as two of the major drivers of crime. The Prime Minister’s strategy unit recently estimated that problem families whose members commit crime, live on benefits and have poor health cost the state up to £250,000 a year every year. By contrast, the NAO reports research from the United States, which shows that the savings from diverting an individual from a life of antisocial behaviour and crime range from £0.9 million to £1.2 million a year. It makes economic as well as social sense to look more creatively at the type of interventions that the NAO says will work and which are cost-effective, including special education programmes and support for families. The Government stab at such solutions in the Respect action plan, but their approach reflects their belief—no doubt honestly held—that top-down central intervention really can change things on the ground. It rarely can, and in the case of antisocial behaviour, it has not. We believe that a new approach is needed, which epitomises our belief in social responsibility—that we all, not just the state, have obligations to our neighbours and communities, and that politicians should put trust in people and the local associations that they naturally form. That means ensuring that voluntary organisations and local communities are empowered to participate in the organisation of community safety.