Examination of Witnesses (Questions 525-539)
8 MARCH 2005
RT HON
RICHARD CABORN,
RT HON
ALUN MICHAEL,
DEREK TWIGG,
MS HAZEL
BLEARS AND
YVETTE COOPER
Q525 Chairman: Good afternoon, thank
you very much indeed for coming this afternoon and for all the
work it has taken within your busy diaries to get five Ministers
to the Select Committee this afternoon, but the inquiry into anti-social
behaviour has ranged across, as you would expect, many different
government departments. We will probably be quite informal, so
we may invite you to answer questions by your first name, because
if we just say "Minister" we will get killed in the
rush to respond. This is the final session of the inquiry into
anti-social behaviour, and perhaps I could start off with a question
on which, perhaps, Hazel, you could answer first, at least. Quite
a few of the witnesses that we have had on this subject have argued,
essentially, that anti-social behaviour is so subjective and so
much "in the eye of the beholder" that, actually, the
Government, by talking about anti-social behaviour all the time
is, largely, responsible for the claimed increase in anti-social
behaviour. What would you say to that?
Ms Blears: I think I would take,
almost, the opposite view to that. I think that anti-social behaviour
has been going on in communities across this country for a long
time, and I think what we have done by bringing together policies
to try and tackle the problems of anti-social behaviour has recognised
the reality of the situation that people have been facing on the
ground. I personally think—and I think now we have evidence—that
problems of anti-social behaviour have simply not been addressed
for a long time, and that particularly people living in the poorest
communities have had a sense that: "Nothing can ever be done;
it will always be like that in this neighbourhood", and have
felt pretty powerless about tackling the problems that are out
there. I would also like to deal with the issue of the definition
of anti-social behaviour. I have had a quick trawl through some
of the evidence that you have received, and I know that people
have said that they would like to see definitions around "reasonableness"
being inserted into the provisions. However, I was particularly
struck by the evidence, I think, of Mr Pilkington, who happens
to be the City of Salford's solicitor, dealing with these matters,
and he said that you could talk about the definition but, actually,
most people know and understand what anti-social behaviour is
from their experience in their communities. There was also some
research done, I think, by Vision 21 for the Home Office, which
again said that most people recognise what anti-social behaviour
is. I think it is important to define it from the view of the
people who are suffering alarm, harassment, and distress, and
that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Q526 Chairman: One thing that is quite
clear from the witnesses is that however big a problem it is today
we do not have any reliable evidence going back over 10, 15, 20
years to compare it with. Could you explain to the Committee how
the Government is currently measuring anti-social behaviour and
whether you think that we have a sufficiently robust way of measuring
it, so that when we come back and do the surveys again in 5 or
10 years' time we will know whether the problem has got better
or worse?
Ms Blears: Yes, it is a difficult
area to measure because it does cover such a wide spectrum of
activity. Particularly, in the very integrated approach that we
have deliberately taken as a Government, it ranges from graffiti,
fly-tipping, fly-posting, nuisance neighbours and gangs hanging
around. So the measurements we have got are actually in the British
Crime Survey, which, as you all know very well, Chairman, is the
most authoritative, wide-ranging survey that we do about crime
and disorder. Within that we measure people's perception of anti-social
behaviour. Again, that mirrors, in a way, our definition of anti-social
behaviour because it is the perception of the people who experience
it. In 2002-03, 21% of the population said that they experienced
a high level of anti-social behaviour; in the following year,
2003-04, that has now come down to 16%, and I think a five percentage
points drop in that period of time is quite impressive. What we
do measure are seven different strands of people's perceptions,
and they range from abandoned cars, noisy neighbours/loud parties,
being drunk and rowdy in public places, dealing or using drugs,
gangs hanging around, rubbish and litter to vandalism and graffiti.
Those are our seven strands. Again, in those figures the perception
around all of those seven strands has reduced as well. I think
it is as robust a measure as we can get for this very wide-ranging
area, and we will continue to survey around those seven strands
of perception.
Q527 Chairman: That list, which is quite
wide-ranging, does not include fly-tipping, for example, which
was one of the primary concerns. So when we come to ask you how
you are going to measure progress on that, it is clearly part
of anti-social behaviour.
Alun Michael: Absolutely right.
I think one of the problems with anti-social behaviour is that,
obviously, when the Government first came at this and recognised
that a lot of activity and offences that have been regarded as
relatively low-level actually made a contribution to wider crime
and to people's perception of what was going on in their area—both
of those things are important—it was clear that a lot of
things were not being measured in a way that enable us to know,
over time, what was happening. One of the measures, therefore,
is the work that has been done by Defra jointly with the Environment
Agency and the Local Government Association, and that is to develop
Fly-capture as a national fly-tipping database to measure the
scale and extent of fly-tipping. What that indicates, in the work
that has been done, is that someone fly-tips in England every
35 seconds. That equates to something like 75,000 incidents a
month which are dealt with by local authorities. The point is
that once you are measuring in this way you can then compare over
time, which comes to the comparison that you are making. There
are also some other tools for measuring management and effectiveness
in tackling some of these issues, for instance the litter and
detritus is measured by Best Value Performance indicator BV199—again,
relatively new—over a period of time, enabling local authorities
to demonstrate whether or not they are tackling those issues.
ENCAMS now carries out a local environmental quality survey of
England and produces answers on a regional basis. Indeed, we launched
the first one, Hazel, together because we wanted to demonstrate
that this goes across different departmental interests. We have
just published the third of those, which means you have got a
comparison now each year, in which we can see some things improving
and some things deteriorating, and bring forward evidence of what
works. Just to give one example: fast food litter is one of the
things that creates a feeling that "nobody cares around here".
It has been demonstrated through the work that has been done that
where you have a partnership approach, and we publish guidance
developed with the industry on this, you can actually significantly
reduce fast food litter, but where no action is being taken on
that collective basis it has been getting worse year on year.
Q528 Chairman: Can we move on to that?
If, as a member of the public, I felt that Best Value Performance
Indicator BV199 was not being satisfactorily addressed in my area,
what redress should I have, as a member of public, if I felt the
police or local authorities (not just on that issue) were not
responding effectively to the concerns? What rights does the Government
think I should have to have things dealt with?
Alun Michael: The first thing,
John, is that obviously the point of those measurements is to
make sure that the job is being done comprehensively across an
area. The fact that one particular location is neglected or that
there is more litter in one area does not give you an indication
of whether the job is being done properly by those involved.
Q529 Chairman: Let us focus on the individual
citizen, who is dissatisfied with some aspect of anti-social behaviour
problem. What rights can we say they have as a result of the Government's
strategy?
Alun Michael: There are a number
of legislative approaches. It is one of those things that overlaps.
The fact of the matter is that if there is a measurement on which
local authorities have to account to their membership, then that
assists, but people can also go directly to court themselves in
relation to some of the littering offences.
Ms Blears: I think, in relation
to local authorities, for example, if they are not doing the job
that they should be doing then people have a clear complaints
process—most local authorities have got a complaints procedure
at various stages—and, I suppose, their ultimate destination
would probably be the Local Government Ombudsman if they felt
their council was not delivering on the things that they had to
do. In the police field, if people feel that the police are not
doing their job properly, then the first port of call would probably
be to the Chief Constable, but what we have mooted in the Police
Reform White Paper is the possibility of a trigger power for communities
to call to account statutory authorities who are perhaps not carrying
out their responsibilities. It is fairly controversial, I think;
it is treading new territory, and we have said we do not see it
as a first resort; we would like people to get round a table and
solve their problems together through consensus, but if that is
not possible and the authorities are deliberately not carrying
out their functions then we believe the community should have
a right to call them to account and, at least in the first instance,
get them to come to a meeting; secondly, to make sure that local
people can get information about what they are doing and how it
compares with other people, and, in the last resort, actually
get, maybe, even a snap inspection of the services just to see
why things are going wrong. We want to do that very much with
local government, using local councillors as their community champions
and their advocates, which is absolutely their role, but I do
genuinely feel, in the minority of cases where people are really
trying to make a difference in their community, then the councils
and the police have to come on board, use the powers that we as
Government have given them and we do need some mechanisms to make
that happen.
Q530 Chairman: You have got a huge challenge
here, have you not? If there is one thing on which there was clearly
a consensus from, I think, all of the professional organisations
that we talked to—whether it was housing, social services,
local government or the police—it was that professional
agencies are the people who should decide what the acceptable
standards of anti-social behaviour are, not people living in local
communities. I may be wrong but I do not think we had a single
witness giving oral evidence who was prepared to put themselves
under a system where local people decided the standards of anti-social
behaviour because of the problems of inconsistency and all the
rest of it. Now, there is a huge problem, is there not, if the
value system of our professional organisations says it is professionals
who judge what is acceptable in this community not the people
who live there? If you really want to give local communities the
power to challenge poor performance, how are you going to overcome
that attitude that this Committee heard consistently throughout
this inquiry?
Ms Blears: I think you do it,
partly, through structures and mechanisms, but I do not think
that is the whole story. I think the way that you do it is get
people working side-by-side, and that is why the whole of the
anti-social behaviour campaign is called Together, and
that means practitioners working with local people, working with
the voluntary sector and working with local businesses, because
it is that relationship that will actually begin to change that
sense that practitioners will do this to you, to their standards.
It is almost reversing that, so it is local people in the driving
seat, empowered and enabled by the practitioners to take control
of their own neighbourhoods. A very big strand of our anti-social
behaviour thinking is that we are about almost reversing that
balance of power and putting local people in the driving seat
because, at the end of the day, if this is going to be sustainable
then they need to own the improvements that have taken place in
their own neighbourhood, and be less reliant on the public services
to do it for them.
Yvette Cooper: I do not think
that the tension you pose between professional views, on the one
hand, and local community views, on the other, needs actually
to be a tension in practice. Obviously, it should not be a matter
for the local community to decide whether an individual offender
should be subject to an ASBO or not; that should be a matter for
the courts. Equally, if there is, for example, a problem with
graffiti in the area and a local professional agency has said:
"Well, we don't think that's a problem" but the community
are saying: "Yes, actually, it is a problem and we don't
like this, and this is repeated and this is not being addressed",
then that is a matter for the local community, and it is the local
community's view that should be taken seriously. I think it is
much more complex than the idea that there is a simple, single
professional view and a simple, single community view and that
those are in conflict and you have to choose one over the other;
it will vary from case to case. Ultimately, if the question is
really about accountability—what chance do the community
have to have their say and be able to hold people to account for
the standards that they want to see—in the end, this is
about the democratic accountability of local authorities. Where
local authorities are responsible for standards of cleanliness
or for taking action, ultimately, people have the vote in local
elections. Obviously, there are other ways and other intermediate
ways in between local elections for local communities to express
their views, whether it be through complaints procedures, as Hazel
has said, or through local councillors playing a stronger role
as champions. We are keen to try to strengthen those kinds of
accountability arrangements, particularly at the very local level,
which is why we set out in the recent five-year plan the proposals
for a national framework statement and a neighbourhoods charter
for engagement at a local level along with ideas for much more
local level debates and processes. Many areas already have local
neighbourhood managers who are much more responsive to the local
community as well, and it means that people can just go and talk
to them and they can go and chase up the agencies that are not
taking a problem seriously enough or not moving fast enough. As
Hazel said, we are exploring this idea of the trigger mechanisms,
where if a particular service falls below a certain standard could
that operate as a trigger? This is work in progress. I think the
bottom line is there is accountability through local government
and through democratic accountability but we think we need to
go further at a very local level to give communities a stronger
voice.
Q531 Chairman: Your department, Yvette,
is responsible, for example, for the housing service. One of the
professions where this attitude was apparent is among professional
housing management—the definition of the point to which
a tenant's behaviour has become unacceptable. Are you actually
prepared to challenge those professional judgments in order to
reflect the views of tenants within the social housing system,
or is not the reality that those professional judgments are going
to win out?
Yvette Cooper: In the end, these
are similar processes to the kinds of processes that operate through
the courts. In the end, Parliament does not decide on individual
cases; Parliament sets the laws and the courts decide on individual
cases. In the end, when it comes to standards of behaviour and
nuisance behaviour, for example, in local areas, then it must
be a matter for the community's debate and for wider debate at
local authority level as to what are the standards that are appropriate
in that area and what are the standards that are appropriate for
local housing associations to insist on, but when it comes to
an individual case, of course, there are going to be professional
judgments that have to take place about an individual case. There
are also all kinds of complexities about individual cases; you
do not know whether there might be a problem—which some
people are interpreting as being anti-social behaviour—with
a teenager with learning disabilities or with autistic behaviour.
There are all sorts of complexities there that need to be addressed
at the individual level, which are slightly separate, I think,
from the kinds of broad brush standards that you would expect
to be debated much more widely.
Ms Blears: Can I add that I think
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, clearly, when they
do their audits, and their strategies, should be taking account
of what the standards are that local people want to see being
developed for them, and that is one of their prime focuses. They
really should be taking an active interest in looking at those
standards.
Alun Michael: Can I say, also,
Chairman, I think there is a degree of surprise at the suggestion
that local people do not want to have ownership of the problem.
Q532 Chairman: The issue is: are they
allowed to?
Alun Michael: That is a different
thing. I misunderstood what you were saying. I think there are
ways in which local people have become engaged in these issues,
which very often range across the issues, as you said, of crime,
disorder, graffiti, and all of these things. One of the best examples
I have seen is the Manchester 100 Days campaign, which I believe
they are repeating because it was successful. That was a clean-up
campaign. What happened during the 100 days, which I thought was
excessively over-ambitious—from my experience I thought
a couple of days or a week would have been very ambitious—was
that because it was a long campaign it gave time for local communities
and local community groups to become engaged and involved, and
to make their contribution. There was almost an exponential increase
in the engagement of the community because it was going on, and
that was creating mutual confidence between the local authority
and all the other players. We have also, with the Clean Neighbourhood
Bill, for instance, given powers to parish and town councils to
issue fixed penalty notices, which is another way of giving confidence
to the most local level of democracy to be able to play a part
and make a difference, if they see it as important in their community.
Q533 Mr Taylor: Can I put it to Ministers
that the Government has introduced a whole range of enforcement
powers as well as diversionary and support schemes. Do you have
a blueprint of what a local anti-social behaviour strategy should
look like?
Ms Blears: At every occasion that
I get the chance to talk about this I say that I think we should
have a twin-track approach, and that is tough enforcement, sanctions
for poor behaviour but, also, support for people who want to change
how they live their lives, and particularly early intervention
in relation to young people. I think a strategy ought to be pretty
straightforward, to be honest; these are not that complicated
issues. First of all, identify the issues that people are concerned
about locally; secondly get the partnership together and get the
principles right on which you are operating, so you do not get
confusion; thirdly, have a communications plan to tell the public
what it is you are doing, in very simple, straightforward language,
and, fourthly, have an action plan. I do think that this is something
different around the anti-social behaviour agenda; we do not issue
guidance, we have an action plan, which has a real sense of momentum
about it, and, finally, we evaluate what we have done, learn from
the success and spread the good practice and learn the lessons.
So I think it is an integrated strategy: it is early intervention
(absolutely crucial: nip the problems in the bud if we can), work
on long-term prevention, particularly around young people, to
stop them becoming the next generation of people involved in crime
and anti-social behaviour; tough enforcement, using the whole
range of powers that are now available, from fixed penalty notices,
ASBOs, if necessary, dispersal orders, parenting orders, individual
support orders—all the powers are now there—but, also,
support for people who really do want to get a grip of some of
the problems that they are facing and change their lives. I would
just highlight there some of the work that we have been doing
around nuisance neighbours, because it is one of the most difficult
issues for anybody to deal with. Often, the problems are complex,
they are multi-layered; families can have problems around drugs,
around alcohol and around mental health problems. We have been
supporting ten of our trailblazers to try and do some innovative
work around dealing with the most difficult families. Encouragingly,
of the 100 families that were originally looked at, two-thirds
of them have begun to improve their behaviour. Interestingly,
40% of them said that it was the prospect of enforcement that
was the biggest motivating factor to them changing their behaviour.
30% also said the support that was available and one-to-one counselling
was very important, but it was that combination of enforcement
and support that began to change that behaviour.
Q534 Mr Taylor: We have heard the criticism
that the emphasis has been too much on enforcement and not enough
on prevention. Are you actively driving budgets towards prevention
as well as enforcement?
Ms Blears: Yes, we are. As I said,
it is a twin-track approach. If you look at the some of the projects
that we are working on with young people, we have got Youth Inclusion
Panels, we have got Youth Inclusion Support Panels, aimed at youngsters
from 8-13, and then the older young people up to 15, 16—really,
trying to target not just those young people who are already in
trouble with the system but those who are at risk of getting involved
in crime and disorder, particularly around drug misuse as well.
That is a very large programme of support, particularly for young
people. We have also got Positive Futures programmes. I think
there are 180 of those operating now right across the country,
and they really concentrate on the use of sport as a way of diverting
some of our young people. They are very well supported by the
Football Foundation and, indeed, locally in my area, our rugby
league team does a Positive Futures programme, which is very successful
indeed. So there is an awful lot of work going on to try and prevent
this kind of behaviour happening. I think every community will
say to you that if we can nip it in the bud and prevent it happening,
that is exactly what they want us to do, but where it is there
then they want us to use the enforcement powers that we have got.
I make no apology for saying that for too long the police and
local authorities did not have the tools to do the job; they would
turn up to a problem and they would have to say to local people:
"I am sorry, there is nothing we can do." I think that
is an unacceptable state of affairs. Now they have got the powers
and they are using them increasingly now across the country, which
I am delighted about, but I still think there is much, much more
to do. So enforcement and support, and I do believe that we are
putting considerable resources into that support and prevention
strand.
Q535 Mr Taylor: I am glad you have mentioned
Youth Inclusion Panels, and Youth Inclusion Support Panels because
there is evidence that they are effective. However, you will have
probably read the evidence of Professor Morgan who suggested that
1,300 such programmes were really needed and that you, in the
name of Government, have funded 250. So the question must arise,
why are you leaving over 1,000 communities without this cheap
and effective intervention?
Ms Blears: All interventions cost
money. Indeed, I think Youth Inclusion Panels and Youth Inclusion
Support Panels are good value for money because they are showing
that re-offending goes down quite dramatically. I think, in the
Derby programme, arrest rates for the young people taking part
went down by 94.6% compared to the 12-month period before they
took part in the programme, so clearly they do work. Resources,
inevitably, are limited; we do not have a bottomless pit and we
have to decide where to target our resources where they can be
most effective. As I say, I think the YIPs and YISPs (dare I say
it) are doing an excellent job. Obviously, if we can afford to
invest more in it then that is one of the programmes that we would
look to invest in because they are shown to be good value and
effective, but there will always be some limit about how much
we can do and there will always be demand for us to do more.
Mr Caborn: Could I just say as
well, because Mr Taylor raised the question of sport, what we
are trying to do now is actually build sport into the social infrastructure
in a way that, probably, we have not done before. We are now committed
to two hours of quality physical activity or sport for every child,
every week, from the age of 5 to 16. One of the other areas that
we have been addressing is the fall-out rate we have in this country,
which is greater than any other. 70% of our young people, when
they leave school, do not continue in active sport. So we have
been addressing that with the governing bodies of sport; we have
gone through a whole modernisation programme but we have also
invested £60 million of Exchequer money into the development
of a club-to-school structure. One of the weaknesses—not
solely—is our sports club structure, which unfortunately
has declined over the years. We are now building that back up
and we are linking club to school—and school to club. I
was in Anfield yesterday, with Liverpool Football Club, with Groundwork,
with the Football Foundation and with Barclays Bank. Barclays
have now invested £30 million over the next three years into
grass roots sports and facilities through the Football Foundation.
Those four partners have come together and invested in what was
a youth club there and sports centre in a very, very imaginative
way. They are talking about 80,000 people going through that establishment
now. When you actually look at the programme we have put in in
terms of culture, then we have now gone for a National Culture
Certificate which is going to put 3,000 community cultures on
the ground over the next period. Link that to the 400 sports partnerships
that we have got and we are building a very sustainable structure.
One of the weaknesses of sport has been that we have not been
able to measure it in any effective way. I think what is coming
through very clearly, through our sports partnerships, particularly
in schools, is that where the ethos of sport is used then we see
less truancy, less exclusions and higher academic attainment levels.
So that, linking with the community itself, is actually very positive
and very sustainable.
Q536 Mr Taylor: Richard, before Derek
comes in, if I may, I just wanted to respond to you. This is not,
perhaps, a question and I am not sure that I am pushing you for
an answer. Society has changed enormously in this club-to-school
business. Thirty years ago, when I was a regular club cricketer,
which I was for 20 seasons—
Mr Caborn: And a very good one.
Q537 Mr Taylor: Thank you, Richard. Chairman,
it may surprise you but there is a serious point here. We actively
encouraged school cricketers to come and practise in the club
under supervision so that when they became school-leavers the
transition to the club had, in a sense, already occurred. Richard,
I am not at all confident that this is going on these days as
it did then, when it was entirely voluntary, with no government
or local authority got involved; we were after the best school-leavers
at playing cricket and we provided them with facilities in order
to get them.
Mr Caborn: I think there is some
truth in what you are saying, in that society has changed—there
is no doubt about that. Indeed, if one looks at the structure
of industry, there is no doubt that the multi-sports clubs that
we had in many of the big companies up and down this country were
significant, but as industry has changed then that has changed.
This is where there is a dilemma between the structure we have
got, with the silo-ed thinking sometimes of governing bodies,
as against trying to get multi-sports clubs in operation. Indeed,
that is what we are moving towards. So the club-to-school link
is not the individual sport-to-club but, actually, a multi-sports
club approach, and that is why we have developed, through the
Treasury, the Community Amateur Sports Club Scheme, which has
a tax incentive. That is why we have given money in rate relief
to sports clubs to encourage the growth of sports clubs. There
is also another big issue—
Q538 Chairman: Whilst there is a good
value, clearly, in investing in sports and school links, which
no one would deny, the head of the Youth Justice Board, Professor
Morgan, the person right at the centre from the criminal justice
side of dealing with anti-social behaviour and youth issues, came
to this Committee and said: "We have 1,300 communities in
this country that need Youth Inclusion programmes or similar,
because it is the most effective way of preventing young people
getting involved in anti-social behaviour, and we have 250."
I think there is a fair question here: if that is the most effective
route to prevention, why either is central government not funding
more of them or why is there not greater pressure on local agencies,
local authorities and others, to divert more of their resources
into this cost-effective way? The background to Mr Taylor's question
is that witness after witness has come here and said: "The
Government talks a lot about enforcement and is not delivering
on prevention" (if we can come back to that question). Or
is the Government's view, actually, that Professor Morgan is not
right and that, in fact, Youth Inclusion programmes are merely
one of a number of things, and that in most communities now there
is suitable preventative action?
Ms Blears: I think I was highlighting
the Youth Inclusion programmes as one of the successful initiatives
that have been taken. It is relatively early days. It was in April
2003 that they set up 14 of the pilot YISPs for the younger age
group—the 8-13s—to run, so it is very early days to
be simply saying that this is the best and, almost, the only way
of dealing with these issues; there is a whole range of diversionary
activities that young people are involved with, from main-stream
youth service provision through local education authorities, to
a whole range of voluntary activities—the kind of things
that Richard has talked about—and I think that these Youth
Inclusion Panels are really aimed at those young people who are
at risk of getting involved with crime and disorder.
Q539 Chairman: Are they the ones we should
be worried about?
Ms Blears: They are, but I think
there is also a whole range of activities going on out there which
some of these youngsters will have access to rather than simply
the specialist programmes that have been developed in this very
structured way, through the youth justice system, because I think
this is targeted at the people who are at real risk of getting
involved. It does not mean that that is all that is going on in
the community; every community now has far more investment in
youth services than they ever used to have. I think one of the
challenges is to make that youth provision appropriate and attractive
to the kind of people that we are trying to reach. I think we
have moved on from the days when it was all five-a-side soccer,
and now there are things like DJ-ing, arts activities, dance and
a range of drama opportunities, which are more attractive. However,
I still think we have a way to go in making our mainstream youth
service that kind of attractive service. The YIPs and YISPs are
a good component there but I certainly do not think that they
are the only way of attacking these issues.
Derek Twigg: Can we go back in
terms of the early years, and preventative work, which starts
in terms of our Sure Start programme, working with vulnerable
young people and families at a very early age, and also the Every
Child Matters agenda, the Children's Trust, the Children's
Fund and the Connexions Service—all these other areas which
you bring into play in terms of working with young people. The
key thing that we are trying to get across is this multi-agency
approach and strategic approach, and bringing all the different
partners—whether it be YOTs or Sure Start or schools or
the health service—together from a very early age to help
vulnerable young people and, of course, families, through providing
parenting support and so on. I think there is an awful lot, even
in the early years, that we are currently doing and a lot of it
is pretty new but it is clearly the right way to take it forward
and to work on the preventative measures and link in with the
other areas that have been outlined here.
|
