Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-34)
11 MARCH 2004
MS LOUISE
CASEY AND
MR WILL
NIBLETT
Q20 Mr Challen: Does the Anti-Social
Behaviour Unit really only tackle the effects of anti-social behaviour
or is it also involved in looking at the causes as well?
Ms Casey: I am really clear that
there are an awful lot of things that have happened in the last
five to 10 years, such as SureStart, Positive Futures, Supporting
People and homelessness programmes, that have been put in place
and they are all part of an overall strategy to tackle anti-social
behaviour. In the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit right now with the
Together campaign we need to get people to work together to take
action. Action will speak louder than words. One of my proudest
moments at the end of last week was when a local authority called
the Together action line, got the rules and regulations on how
to close a crack house and that night went out and closed a crack
house. That is what this unit is in the business of making happen.
Q21 Paul Flynn: As one of your admirers
when you held the role of the homelessness czarina, I thought
you brought a very refreshing and practical approach to homelessness.
You said earlier on that that is not what you are employed for.
What are you employed for? Why are you doing this job now?
Ms Casey: It goes back to the
last answer. Basically I am trying to fulfil David Blunkett's
and Hazel Blear's agenda to make sure that local communities and
areas tackle rather than tolerate anti-social behaviour. That
is my essential job.
Q22 Paul Flynn: One of the things that
has come through to us is the multiplicity of government departments
and agencies which are really trying to do something about this
problem. Is there a danger that some of the problems will fall
through the cracks, that they will be no-one's responsibility,
and others are being dealt with by two or three departments wastefully?
Is that a problem?
Ms Casey: One similarity between
my current role and my previous role is that part of my brief
is to make sure that we are joining up different government departments.
Let us take abandoned cars as an example. Abandoned cars historically
was not really nailed in terms of policy responsibility to any
government department, and rightly so. It is a difficult one.
It is one of the ones that could fall through the cracks. One
of my jobs was to work with different government departments to
make sure that we did nail a government department, which is now
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to make sure that we
are all linked together with them to do it.
Q23 Paul Flynn: Do you think you are
sufficiently resourced for that? It is a silly question to ask
because no-one ever says, "Yes, we are".
Ms Casey: I think we are.
Q24 Paul Flynn: That is a refreshing
answer.
Ms Casey: You do not need any
resources for joined-up government on my issues.
Q25 Paul Flynn: You did mention that
we MPs are odd people in that we are into confrontation. We are
into believing myths as well—babies cry, dogs bark, politicians
legislate—and we are eager to legislate on everything. Now
we have the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, is there anything else
within the legislation we can do to improve the situation?
Ms Casey: I think there are some
things on the environmental side that might be helpful. The one
that continues to strike me is when you get gating schemes around
the country; there is an issue about that which annoys me slightly.
I am hoping, if there is some environmental legislation down the
track, that we may be able to do that. There are a number of bits
and pieces that did not get into our Bill that certainly Defra
would feel would be helpful to it.
Q26 Paul Flynn: I think you have correctly
said that we should not look for alibis and the negative endless
blame for this and that. What are the practical solutions that
you think are going to be most productive? Is it disingenuous
to believe that we can implement those solutions without extra
resources?
Ms Casey: The main thing that
strikes me about this whole agenda is whether people have the
right attitude. Let us take Southwark as a good example of a local
authority as I have someone on our team seconded from Southwark
and I am familiar with it. Southwark decided that politically
this was a priority and politically they had worked out and started
doing some things on the enforcement side in a high profile way.
That typifies what is going on around the country: when people
decide they are going to do it, they do it. If they listened more,
entered the debate and listened to what their local taxpayers
are saying, they would be prioritising this issue. Everyone comes
into this room saying there are not enough resources. I am not
sure on this particular agenda that it is not a case of: where
there is a will there is a way. There are very good examples where
people clear abandoned cars; they do not just take the racist
abuse off the walls, as they need to do within 24 hours, but they
are able to take graffiti off within a week or two weeks; they
manage to get the noise abatement team sorting out problems; and,
interestingly, they link in with the wider anti-social behaviour
team to look at who the individuals are in the community perpetuating
all of this. Your problem families are likely or possibly going
to be doing some of the stuff which this Committee is worrying
about. I genuinely believe it is about where there is a will there
is a way. If people care about social justice, they care about
environmental justice. That is what has to be prioritised.
Q27 Paul Flynn: Just say a word about
this. Colin Challen was a strong teenager when I was a grumpy
old man. I am sure that your valiant defence of young people is
absolutely right, that we are predisposed to blame the young.
Having seen this book with the title I'm Just a Teenage Dirt
Bag, Baby! presumably that is an attractive chat-up line.
There is a degree of anarchy that does appear to be more prevalent
in the young generation than previously. It was always there,
I am sure; young people always wanted to kick against the older
generation, but it does seem to me more prevalent and to a greater
degree now than it was previously. Surely that is the case?
Ms Casey: I cannot sit here and
say whether it is more prevalent or not more prevalent. I know
we have got to get better—and we are getting better but
we need to get a lot better—about enforcing basic rules
and showing that there the consequences for people, whether they
are 15 or 50, if they break those rules. Those rules can be small
rules and they do not have to be for GBH; they can be for litter
dropping. Another local authority goes around on a Saturday and
if they see somebody dropping litter on the ground they say, "Were
you that person that just dropped the litter on the floor?"
and they embarrass that person a bit and it gets into the local
newspapers. I am a paid-up member of a bit of embarrassment from
time to time as a good technique. We just need to have lots of
different ways to get people to enforce the rules. That does not
just mean court actions; it can be done in many different ways.
The starting point is when people locally decide they have had
enough and they want to take a stand.
Q28 Mrs Clark: Just following on from
the last points and before I get to my main questions, I disagree
with what you are saying about embarrassing people and saying,
"Hey, are you the person who dropped that piece of litter?"
I think the reason people do not say that, even though they might
consider doing it, is because that person, whom they do not know,
might turn round and sock them in the face, quite frankly.
Ms Casey: It is all right for
a street warden to do it. It is all right for a neighbourhood
warden to do it. It is all right for the environmental health
officer to do. That is what I am encouraging. That is the example
I am citing.
Q29 Mrs Clark: We cannot all wear uniforms.
We cannot all wear those orange coats that the street wardens
wear.
Ms Casey: No, but there are a
lot of people who do wear the coats. There are a lot of people
who do wear the sweatshirts. Interestingly, where you have neighbourhood
wardens in renewal areas, they have been challenging bad behaviour.
Where you see street wardens and neighbourhood wardens on estates,
one of the things they get to grips with very much is just raising
the level of rule-making, so that if people see somebody they
know as John who is the neighbourhood warden, I think they have
a greater sense of responsibility about not messing up the environment.
That is a good thing.
Q30 Mrs Clark: They might tell the neighbourhood
warden. In Peterborough these wardens are excellent. I totally
agree with you that people would report something to the warden,
but I still do not think there is going to be a culture of an
individual person, say me, walking down the street and, when I
see somebody doing something offensive, going up and taking that
action upon myself to challenge them and police them. I think
it is very unrealistic to suggest that people would do that because
obviously people are concerned about their own personal safety.
Ms Casey: I am not suggesting
people do it individually.
Q31 Mrs Clark: That seemed to be what
you were implying.
Ms Casey: Let me make it clear.
I am not suggesting that people do that individually, unless they
feel comfortable to do so. I am not into vigilantes and "have
a go heroes" as people could be injured, but if 30 people
are on a bus and one perpetrator "graffities" the back
of that bus, I am saying that it is 30 against one. More often
than not, perpetrators of anti-social behaviour are small in number
and people do not challenge them. I have a friend who was tired
of a particular individual allowing her dog to foul a particular
area directly opposite her house. I said to her, "Talk to
your neighbours and see if they are upset about that as well".
When she did that, they were upset and as a group they went and
talked to the individual and said, "Listen, we just do not
like this". That is what I am encouraging. I am not encouraging
anything other than that.
Q32 Mrs Clark: You are talking about
collective action and collective responsibility?
Ms Casey: Yes, this is all about
collective responsibility.
Q33 Mrs Clark: Moving on to alternative
strategies, some of the memoranda we have had from government
seem to be very much approving of the idea of alternative strategies
and getting away from what you said yourself, always relying on
the court to sentence. Is this an excuse really because the police
do not police properly and magistrates do not sentence properly?
I have to say, and again I am talking quite locally in the sense
of my own constituency, that I go out door-knocking every Sunday,
not canvassing but knocking on doors—"Hello, it's me,
I am your MP. Is there anything I can help you with?" 10
to one they tell me exactly this type of thing you have been talking
about. People are very upset by it. They will point, as happened
a couple of weeks ago, to a nasty old dilapidated scout hut down
at the bottom of their garden, totally ignored, a haven for rats
that were coming into their garden and thus into their kitchen.
When I said, "Have you contacted the police?" the answer
was, "The police were not really very interested. When a
councillor contacted the police on some of these matters, not
that one in particular but other ones, the police said. `We are
sorry but modern policing is not like this any more. We have particular
targets. Our government Home Office target is car theft and burglaries.
It is not our priority to go knocking on doors and dealing with
this small scale stuff. We are reliant on government funding'."
Ms Casey: The first thing to say
is that often solutions are not necessarily in the hands of the
police. In the case you have described, I would say if there are
rats and a dilapidated scout hut, that is probably more in the
domain of the local authority than the police. It is not that
I wish the police not to be involved in this; I do not wish the
police or the courts not to be involved but quite the opposite.
I am saying that in order to pull off the Together campaign, you
have to get people working at all sorts of different levels in
terms of challenging and tackling anti-social behaviour. If everything
just ends up in court, that is not a good thing. You do not just
want to increase the number of people with criminal records but
you do want to get the behaviour challenged. I can only go by
some of the experience of people out there. For example, if challenging
behaviour occurs, sometimes just a visit from a housing officer,
a police officer and Social Services to a family can sort out
a problem magically overnight. That does not involve an anti-social
behaviour order, it does not involve taking the matter to court.
It involves making clear what the score is and offering some support
if necessary. You cannot say, "The police are telling me
this, Social Services are telling me that, housing is telling
the other". They get joined-up dialogue in one visit to deal
with it. That is the point I am trying to make here. I am working
with the Magistrates' Association to try and help magistrates
with some of the sentencing. For example, since January of this
year, the Magistrates' Association has had its own sentencing
guidelines for breach of ASBOs. I think agreement is needed in
public services, in the courts and in the police. I become disappointed
when I hear you say that about the police because I know that
there are loads of areas of the country where the police are really
linked in. There are more police officers now and we can feel
in some areas that there are more community support officers;
there are 3,500 of them right now. We have street wardens and
neighbourhood wardens. The police reform agenda of David Blunkett
and Hazel Blears is getting the police to be more tied in and
linked in with their communities. That is great. That type of
approach would help in many of the anti-social behaviour issues.
Q34 Chairman: Very briefly on the work
you are doing with the magistrates' courts, is it your view, because
a lot of people have expressed it, that current sentences are
just far too lenient?
Ms Casey: Sentences have to fit
the crime and the criminal. I am a lay magistrate—I have
stood down—and so I can see this from both sides of the
spectrum. There is no point in imposing a £5,000 fine on
an individual who is on benefit. It is more appropriate to make
the sentence affordable. If he or she cannot pay that back within
two years, go for a community service order. Magistrates need
to be more reflective of what the community concerns would be.
Imposing a £50 fine for serial criminal damage just does
not work for me. If somebody seriously breaches an ASBOs, letting
them off with something very low level does not work for me. Having
said that, some of the big companies, for example, are doing fly-posting.
I get really frustrated that £500 fines are being handed
out for that; that is a meal ticket. One of the reasons magistrates
are drawn from the local community is so that they can try to
reflect a bit more what the community would want in these scenarios.
Chairman: Thank you very much. It has
been a fascinating session. We are extremely grateful to you.
Ultimately, I think it has been quite an encouraging session as
well. We are grateful to you and to Mr Niblett who, for some reason
or other, did not manage to get a word in edgeways!
| 
