House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fifth Report

1 Introduction

1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as behaviour that is "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". In practice, this covers a wide range of actions, from the dropping of litter on the streets at one end of the spectrum, through to the running of 'crack houses' by drug dealers at the other. In between, drunk and disorderly behaviour, nuisance noise, graffiti, intimidation and many other behaviours are included within the definition. The Government has stated repeatedly in recent years that tackling ASB is one of its priorities.

2. In July 2004, we decided to launch an inquiry into the Government's strategy for combating ASB. The key aspects we announced as the basis of our inquiry were:

the causes of anti-social behaviour;

the effectiveness and proportionality of current powers (including anti-social behaviour orders, fixed penalty notices, dispersal powers, confiscation orders, and local authority powers in relation to housing);

issues of enforcement and co-ordination, looking at the respective roles of local authorities, different Government Departments, CDRPs, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, housing authorities and landlords, and how they inter-relate;

the impact of Government initiatives;

the role of parenting support, youth and community services and the youth justice system in diverting young people from anti-social behaviour;

disparities in levels of anti-social behaviour and in the use of powers to combat it across the country; and

responsibilities of the private sector for tackling anti-social behaviour.

During the course of the inquiry we considered other issues, including questions surrounding the definition of ASB, the appropriate balance to be struck between diversion, non-formal, formal and family interventions and the way in which the response to ASB is determined in practice. We decided to focus upon three manifestations of ASB: namely, ASB perpetrated by young people, neighbour nuisance and alcohol-related disorder.

3. In total, we took oral evidence on six occasions and received 86 written submissions. We also received an informal presentation from Louise Casey, Director of the Home Office's Anti-social Behaviour Unit.

4. In the first half of the inquiry, we wanted to hear from front-line practitioners with direct experience of dealing with the types of ASB upon which we were focusing. On ASB perpetrated by young people, we took oral evidence from Mr Reg Denley, Programme Manager of a Youth Works scheme in Bridgend Housing Estate, South Wales; Mr Neil Pilkington, Principal Solicitor of Salford City Council's Community Safety Unit; Ms Honor Rhodes, Director of Family and Community Care in the Family Welfare Association; and Ms Dawn Roberts, Deputy Manager of Birmingham Youth Offending Service. In relation to nuisance neighbours, we took oral evidence from Ms Sallie Bridgen and Ms Michelle Monaghan from the Shelter Inclusion Project in Rochdale; Mr David Copeland, Peterborough Mediation Service; Sergeant Paul Dunn MBE; and Mr Martin Lee, Head of Operations of Manchester City Council's Nuisance Strategy Group. On the subject of alcohol-related disorder, we took evidence from Mr Philip Doyle, Institute of Licensing; Mr Steve Green, Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire; Professor Dick Hobbs, Department of Law, University of Durham; Mr John Hutson, Chief Executive, and Ms Clare Eames, Director of Legal Services, JD Wetherspoon plc.

5. In the second half of the inquiry, we took oral evidence from 13 national representative organisations and from five Government Departments. We took evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Directors of Social Services, Barnado's, Crime Concern, the Crime and Society Foundation, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Housing Corporation, Justice, the Local Government Association, the Magistrates Association, the National Landlords Association, the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, and the Youth Justice Board. We then questioned several Government ministers: the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP; the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Yvette Cooper MP; the Minister of State for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, Rt Hon Alun Michael MP; the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, Derek Twigg MP; and the Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing, Community Safety and Counter-Terrorism, Hazel Blears MP.

6. We are grateful for the assistance provided by our specialist advisor to this inquiry, Mr Jonathan Manning, a barrister specialising in ASB and housing law. We would like to place on record also our appreciation of the officials in the Home Office Anti-social Behaviour Unit for their help in responding to our written questions and subsequent queries.

The extent of ASB

7. In September 2003, the Home Office undertook a "one-day count" of ASB so as to try to get a snapshot of the extent of the problem. 66,000 reports of ASB were made to participating organisations (police, fire service and local authorities) in England and Wales. The Home Office estimates that this is "equivalent to approximately 13.5 million reports per year or one report every two seconds".[1] It is estimated that the cost of ASB to public services is £3.4 billion a year.[2] In addition to this direct cost, it is apparent that ASB has led to an increased fear of crime, quite apart from the day-to-day impact of nuisance behaviour on neighbours and communities.[3]

8. According to Home Office research—which examined findings from the 2003-04 British Crime Survey—76% of people perceived one or more of the 16 types of anti-social behaviour listed to be a problem in their local area (albeit that traffic offences were included amongst this list of behaviours and these provoked the greatest response).[4] 36% of people said that one or more types of behaviour was a "very big" problem. However, in a majority of cases (80%), perceived problems were not complained about or reported to anyone.

9. A breakdown of how many people felt each type of behaviour to be a problem, reproduced from the Home Office research, is shown in the following table. As well as providing a sense of the extent of the problem, it also serves to indicate the types of behaviour that are seen to be anti-social.

Type of anti-social behaviour Percentage of people perceiving behaviour as a problem in their area:

Fairly big problem Very big problem Total

Speeding traffic 31 12 43

Cars parked inconveniently or illegally 22 9 31

Fireworks (not part of an organised display) 19 10 29

Rubbish or litter 20 9 29

Teenagers hanging around 19 9 28

Vandalism or graffiti 20 8 28

Drug use or dealing 18 9 27

Uncontrolled dogs and dog mess 18 8 26

People being drunk or rowdy 14 5 19

Abandoned cars 11 4 15

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated 9 2 11

Noisy neighbours 6 3 9

Racial attacks 5 2 7

Disputes between neighbours 4 2 6

People with airguns 3 1 4

People sleeping rough 2 1 3

10. The written evidence we received reached different conclusions on whether the problems of ASB have actually worsened. For instance, Barnardo's stated that many people would agree with the statement that "the morals of the children are ten times worse than formerly"—but they pointed out that this statement had in fact been made by Lord Ashley in the House of Commons in 1823. Barnado's claimed that "research over many years shows that there has been an almost continual moral panic about children's behaviour and a preoccupation about the causes of, and how best to deal with and control such behaviour".[5] According to Salford City Council, it is unclear whether ASB really is on the increase, whether tolerance for it has diminished, or whether it is simply given a greater profile.[6] Professor Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, told us that he did not think that "the incidence of anti-social behaviour, however defined, is significantly worse today than it has been in the past, but there is no doubt that the public is concerned about it".[7]

11. On the other hand, Professor Hobbs, of Durham University Department of Law, writing specifically about alcohol-related disorder, was unequivocal that this is a new and serious problem with specific recent causes.[8] Victim Support argued that ASB which can also be classed as criminal behaviour, such as harassment, criminal damage, racially motivated incidents and public disorder, has recently increased significantly.[9] This was confirmed by a number of housing organisations, which reported that ASB has become an issue of increasing importance for tenants.[10] The Local Government Association told us that "anti-social behaviour is a key issue for local communities and therefore for local government". It pointed to research in 2001 finding that local authorities identified ASB as "the top community safety issue they faced, both currently and in the future".[11]

12. In general, there is little hard evidence as to the extent of ASB and whether this has changed over time. The Home Office currently does not measure actual incidents of ASB: it has argued that data relating to incidents would be inherently patchy and unreliable.[12] Instead, it uses the British Crime Survey (BCS) to measure perceptions of ASB. It does this by concentrating on seven types of behaviour commonly seen as anti-social, and asking people whether they consider these to be a very or fairly big problem in their area. The seven types of behaviour are as follows:

Abandoned or burnt out cars
Noisy neighbours or loud parties
People being drunk or rowdy in public places
People using or dealing drugs
Teenagers hanging around on the streets
Rubbish or litter lying around
Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to properties

13. According to the latest BCS figures, some progress has been made.[13] The proportion of people estimated to perceive a high level of disorder in their local area fell from 21% in 2002-03 to 16% in 2003-04, and there were falls in relation to all seven of the specific indicators.

14. However, the figures also indicated the size of the task that remains: 29% of people saw litter as a very or fairly big problem in their area; 28% said the same about vandalism and graffiti; 27% highlighted teenagers hanging around on the streets and 25% highlighted people using or dealing drugs as a very or fairly big local problem.

15. The indication from the British Crime Survey that there has been a fall in the perception of ASB is a good sign, although there would need to be a consistent trend over a number of years to draw any firmer conclusions. The headline figures cannot convey a sense of the full impact of aspects of ASB on some people's lives. According to the BCS, only 9% of people in 2003-04 considered nuisance neighbours to be a very or fairly big problem in their local areas (down from 10% in 2002-03). In these areas, nuisance neighbours may be having a huge impact on the quality of lives of those around them.[14] The BCS found that the number of people perceiving drunk and disorderly behaviour to be a big problem in their local area went down from 23% in 2002-03 to 19% in 2003-04. Our witnesses did not argue that there had yet been a significant improvement. Our inquiry highlighted the dramatic impact of alcohol-related disorder on public services and the wider public.[15] The Minister for Sport and Tourism, Rt Hon Richard Caborn, admitted that, due to alcohol-related disorder, large numbers of people were staying away from town and city centres.[16]

16. Changing perceptions of the problem of ASB inevitably reflect the quality of the response at local level. From this year, for the first time, local authorities will be assessed on their performance in tackling ASB as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.[17] Inspections will focus on evidence that "the council contributes to successful outcomes in reducing ASB, in particular through effective partnership working", and that it "takes a strategic approach, integrating its response to tackling ASB across all services it delivers".[18] Councils will receive a score of between 1 to 4, with a score of 1 indicating inadequate performance and a score of 4 indicating strong performance. However, this score will be given for all of its work in relation to "safer and stronger communities" and not just for ASB.[19] Full assessments will not be frequent or regular, although the worst performers are likely to receive follow-up contact. Whilst the inspection process considers a great deal of evidence, there are likely to be only short descriptions of ASB measures in the assessment reports.[20] The development of a targeted assessment of local authorities to ASB must be seen as a useful step forward.

17. The Government has also changed the way that police performance is measured so that public satisfaction is now an essential element of good performance. From April 2005, the comparative assessment of overall force performance will include the satisfaction of victims of crime about how easy it was to make contact with the police, how they were treated by staff, the actions police officers took and how they were kept informed of progress. According to the White Paper on police reform—Building Communities, Beating Crime—the Home Office is continuing to develop this work so that the views of victims of ASB can also be reflected in assessments of performance.[21]

18. In Section 2 of this report, we explore in more detail the types of behaviour that are seen as genuine problems by people in local communities and the impact these have on people's live. We note there that although some behaviour falling within the definition of ASB has been contested as such, there has been ample evidence throughout this inquiry of the impact on residents, neighbours and communities of even apparently minor acts.

19. We do not believe that the problem of anti-social behaviour has been exaggerated by Government or played up by the media. It is a problem that has a day-to-day impact on residents, neighbours and communities. It seems clear to us that even apparently minor acts can have a huge and disproportionate impact on people who have no way of escaping persistent low-level nuisance behaviour. In that context, the nature of the response goes to the heart of what it means to live in a community.

20. There is currently a paucity of hard evidence as to whether the problem of ASB is being tackled effectively. We welcome the suggestion from the British Crime Survey that there has been a fall in the number of people perceiving ASB to be a problem in their area, although we would need to see a consistent trend over time to draw any firmer conclusions. We welcome the new Audit Commission arrangements: for the first time local authorities will be assessed on their performance in tackling ASB. Similarly, we welcome the measures contained in the White Paper on police reform according to which police performance will be assessed partially by reference to public satisfaction about the response to ASB; however, the police are only one body amongst many with responsibilities in this area.

21. We are concerned that some organisations that do not wish to tackle ASB are in danger of ignoring the needs of victims and witnesses. We bring ample evidence to justify this concern in later sections of this report. We recommend that regular ASB public satisfaction surveys are carried out by CDRPs to improve the evidence base in this area.

The Government's response to ASB

22. The Home Office has described, in general terms, its policy response to ASB:

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a priority for the Home Office and for many Departments across Government.

The Government's response to anti-social behaviour can be summed up as a "twin-track" approach—providing help and support to the individuals and communities and using the full range of powers to ensure acceptable standards of behaviour are upheld. The Government rejects the view that tackling anti-social behaviour is a choice between prevention and enforcement: a successful response involves both. Work to tackle anti-social behaviour should be seen in the wider context of investment in health, education and regeneration and in the reform of public services.[22]

23. Much of the publicity surrounding anti-social behaviour has surrounded the use of enforcement powers as opposed to the provision of "help and support". It is certainly true that the Government has legislated extensively to increase the powers available. Since 1997, new laws have introduced or extended the scope of: anti-social behaviour orders, fixed penalty notices, parenting orders, housing injunctions, demoted tenancies, possession orders, selective licensing schemes, closure powers in respect of premises used for Class A drugs and some licensed premises, and dispersal powers. The main legal features of some of these powers are set out in the table on the following page. This programme of legislation has been supported by the "TOGETHER" campaign, designed to spread awareness of the powers that are available and to encourage effective action to be taken against ASB at local level. It has further been supported by separate but complementary Government initiatives, such as the development of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Youth Offending Teams, and the introduction of Community Support Officers and Neighbourhood Wardens. In addition, under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, each local authority now has a duty "to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area".

24. Attracting less publicity, but also forming a central part of the Government's strategy, has been the development of measures focusing on supporting or diverting perpetrators of ASB. Individual support orders have been introduced for children and young persons subject to ASBOs. Youth Inclusion Programmes and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels have been developed with the aim of targeting children most at risk of offending and addressing their particular risk factors. The Positive Activities for Young People programme has focused on the provision of activities during school holidays. Other initiatives such as the Children's Fund, Sure Start, Connexions, anti-truancy measures, and Splash have all been developed with the aim of helping to prevent ASB.

Power	Imposed by	Imposed against	Effect	Effect of breach
Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO)	Magistrates on application of police, local authorities, RSLs or Housing Action Trusts (HATs).	Someone aged 10+ who has committed anti-social acts, where necessary to protect the public from further acts.	All acts specified in the order (on discretion of magistrate) prohibited for at least 2 years (as specified).	Criminal offence: possible 5 years imprisonment
Acceptable Behaviour Contract	Police, local housing office, schools, social services.	Anyone thought to be committing ASB.	Voluntary agreement to try to curb ASB informally, avoiding the need for an ASBO.	Agency may try to secure ASBO and use breach of ABC as relevant evidence.
Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN)	Police, CSOs, other persons accredited by the Chief Constable.	Anyone aged 16+ guilty of any of the listed offences, including drunkenness offences.	£50 fine (recently increased from £40) for most offences; £80 for more serious offences. No criminal record.	Non-payment would result in prosecution for the matter in which respect of which the notice was given.
Individual Support Order (ISO)	Magistrates, to accompany ASBO.	10-17 year olds who have been given an ASBO.	Aims to complement ASBO by addressing causes of behaviour. Can require attendance at 2 sessions per week for 6 months.	Criminal offence: possible level 3 fine (£1000 or £250 if child is under the age of 14 at time of conviction).
Parenting Order	Magistrates, to accompany ASBO or criminal conviction or else on application of YOTs.	Parents of anti-social children who have refused to co-operate on a voluntary basis	Emphasis on improving parental skills through attendance at a parenting programme. Can impose other requirements.	Criminal offence possible level 3 fine (£1000).
Housing Act Injunction	County or High Court, on application of RSLs, HATs or local housing authorities.	A person over the age of 18 who has acted anti-socially, used premises for unlawful purposes or breached terms of tenancy.	Conduct specified in the injunction prohibited	Contempt of court: possible 2 years imprisonment / unlimited fine.
Demoted tenancies	Court, on application of local authorities, RSLs and HATs.	A tenant guilty of anti-social conduct or unlawful activity	Secure or assured tenancy ended and replaced with a demoted tenancy	Possible possession proceedings, resulting in eviction.
Licensing scheme	Local housing authority with consent of national authority (Secretary of State or Welsh Assembly).	most private landlords within area specified (which must be an area with significant and persistent ASB problems)	Landlords required to obtain licence to let or manage residential property in the area. Licence conditions may include need to take reasonable steps to deal with ASB of occupants and visitors.	Criminal offence to operate without a licence where one is required: possible £20,000 fine. Criminal offence to fail to comply with the terms of licence: possible level 5 fine.
Dispersal power	Police officer or CSO	A group of people congregating in designated area (which must be an area with persistent ASB).	Police officer of CSO can require a group to disperse without evidence that it is causing ASB.	Refusal to follow the officer's directions to disperse is an offence: possible level 4 fine or three months imprisonment

25. In 2003 the Government established an Anti-social Behaviour Unit, based in the Home Office. The Unit's budget for 2004-05 is £25 million, and it has staff complement of 33, although—as of December 2004—it only employed 26 staff members. The Unit's main objective is "to add value to the existing measures to tackle anti-social behaviour and to drive forward new policy, practice and action".[23]

26. In this report, we assess the effectiveness of the Government's ASB strategy, focusing especially on how the response has been implemented at local level. In Section 2 of the report, we examine issues surrounding the definition of ASB and explore the ways in which different types of anti-social behaviour manifest themselves as problems in local neighbourhoods. In Section 3, we focus on youth nuisance: the competing philosophies of how to deal with young perpetrators of ASB and how this affects the local response, the challenges created by the need for agencies to work together at local level and the effectiveness and proportionality of the available powers. In Section 4, we look at "neighbours from hell": the housing-related context of ASB, how the response to neighbour problems is likely to be determined in practice and the housing-based powers to combat unacceptable behaviour. In Section 5, the focus is on alcohol-related disorder, as experienced in town and city centres particularly on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. We examine the context of changes in licensing laws and new police powers in relation to licensed premises and anti-social individuals, before considering the measures that are needed in order for the problem to be tackled at root. In Section 6, we build on the evidence presented in the previous chapters and suggest what can be done to improve the response to ASB at a local level.

1 For a summary of this exercise, see www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/ASB_Day_Count_Summary.pdf Back

2 Home Office and Youth Justice Board, Youth offending teams and anti-social behaviour: draft guidance, 2004. This figure does not include the effect of alcohol-related disorder Back

3 Ev 4, HC 80-II; Wood, Perceptions and Experience of Anti-social Behaviour, Home Office Findings 252, 2004; Home Office, Respect and Responsibility-Taking a Stand against Anti-social Behaviour, Cm 5778, 2003, p13; Campbell, A review of anti-social behaviour orders, Home Office Research Study 236, 2002 Back

4 Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour Back

5 Ev 13, HC 80-II Back

6 Ev 127, HC 80-II Back

7 Q 416 Back

8 Ev 45, HC 80-II Back

9 Ev 139, HC 80-II Back

10 See, for instance, Ev 94, 135, HC 80-II Back

11 Ev 77, HC 80-II Back

12 Ev 168, HC 80-III Back