Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Brokenshire (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 2 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on Antisocial Behaviour.


Antisocial Behaviour

The hon. Gentleman has made the point about housing in his own way. Clearly, when we consider housing and the resettlement of offenders when they leave prison or drug rehabilitation, we need to ensure that there is adequate housing that enables people to come back into a community. It is essential to have a housing mix as part of that. We also need to deal with drugs. We would introduce an abstinence-based drug rehabilitation order to break the cycle of addiction and offending, re-focus the approach to treatment on rehabilitation and recovery rather than simple maintenance and management, and emphasise prevention in drugs education rather than simple harm reduction and acceptance. We would also introduce a national citizens service programme for all 16-year-olds who want a place, providing a six-week programme to strengthen the skills, confidence and outlook of young people as they approach adulthood. Then there is the framework for delivering sustained change on crime and unacceptable behaviour. Local authorities should be re-focused on crime prevention and early intervention, providing services to prevent crime from happening rather than attempting to reduce it once it has. Many local authorities are doing innovative positive work in their communities to combat antisocial behaviour, but, as we have heard, too many crime and disorder partnerships are police-led rather than council-driven. Rather than having even more micro-management, there should be clearer ways to identify and share good practice—practice that is scalable and transferable—and the Audit Commission has an important role to play in collating and communicating that information. Rather than trying to fulfil some of the roles of local authorities as well, the police should be allowed to concentrate on what they do best—deterrence, detection and enforcement. There should be clearer responsibilities, clearer ownership of problems and clearer accountability. We need to address the perverse incentives that are hard-wired into the system and seem to encourage the approach whereby drug-treatment strategies are largely focused on substituting a prescription for a drug habit, often ending with illicit drugs, methadone and other prescribed drugs being taken at the same time, and whereby it is seemingly more cost-effective for local authorities to let troubled teenagers go to young offender institutions than to deal with the factors behind their behaviour. That is simply absurd. It is time for a new approach based on the recognition that only with the Government and individuals, and the social institutions that exist between the two, sharing responsibility can we make substantial and sustained differences in changing behaviour; that families and communities are more effective at instilling a culture of respect and responsibility than laws, rules or regulations; and that, ultimately, societal change is required to promote safer and more cohesive communities. This is too serious an issue to be allowed to drift or for people to coast on. If the Government are unable to meet that challenge and to demonstrate their commitment to a sustained approach that is needed to deal with the problems in our communities, we are ready, willing and waiting to meet that challenge.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c627-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Disadvantaged Anti-social behaviour Bureaucracy Neighbourhood policing Housing Families Police Vetting Schools Young offenders Anti-social behaviour orders Family intervention projects
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk