Conclusions and recommendations
1. 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. (Paragraph 19)
2. 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.
(Paragraph 20)
3. 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 recommend
that regular ASB public satisfaction surveys are carried out by
CDRPs to improve the evidence base in this area. (Paragraph 21)
4. We have listened
carefully to criticisms of the current legal definitions of ASB
as too wide. We are convinced, however, that it would be a mistake
to try to make them more specific. This is for three main reasons:
first, the definitions work well from an enforcement point of
view and no significant practical problems appear to have been
encountered; second, exhaustive lists of behaviour considered
anti-social by central government would be unworkable and anomalous;
third, ASB is inherently a local problem and falls to be defined
at a local level. It is a major strength of the current statutory
definitions of ASB that they are flexible enough to accommodate
this. We would argue also that the definitions are helpful in
backing an approach that stands with the victims of ASB and their
experience rather than narrowly focusing on the behaviour of the
perpetrators. (Paragraph 44)
5. It has been suggested
to us that much anti-social behaviour by young people is really
a matter of a lack of tolerance, or inter-generational conflict.
We conclude that, for the most part, this simply is not true.
In particular, behaviour which invites a formal response (such
as the use of enforcement powers) is almost always serious, persistent,
and non-contentiously anti-social... The argument also underestimates
the effect of even apparently minor acts on local residents. (Paragraph
53)
6. In relation to
most neighbour nuisance cases, it is similarly clear that these
cannot be put down to a mere clash of lifestyles: in the majority
of cases, one party is at fault, and the effect of his or her
behaviour is magnified by the inability of the other party to
escape from it. In some cases, it may be less clear-cut that behaviour
is anti-social. In such cases, the key question is how the decision
is made and by whom. (Paragraph 61)
7. We would argue
that the process of defining what constitutes ASB at a local level
must itself be seen as part of the response to ASB. We have been
told that, in practice, this decision is largely made by groups
of professionals responding to complaints, and—on a strategic
level—by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. But
it seems clear from the evidence we have received that—
i. the definition of some behaviour as anti-social
can be contested;
ii. tolerance is a variable and must, in part,
be educated;
iii. there is a gap—especially in relation
to children—in that what constitutes unacceptable behaviour
is not always being communicated effectively; and that
iv. different problems of ASB are likely to concern
residents of different local neighbourhoods even within local
authority areas.
In light of these points, it seems to us that it
is inappropriate for these judgements to be made by professionals
and by CDRPs alone. The ability of the courts to assist with such
definitions (by deciding which applications will and will not
succeed) does not in our view adequately address this issue. Courts
only see those cases brought before them (which are likely to
be the more serious) and cannot make strategic decisions or comment
on the broader issues. (Paragraph 77)
8. We
welcome the introduction by the Government of Community Justice
Centres in Merseyside and Warwickshire and recommend that it expands
this pilot scheme into other areas so as to achieve a stronger
basis for evaluation. In the meantime, we recommend that local
authorities and CDRPs develop mechanisms for ensuring that the
views of local residents are taken fully into account as an essential
aspect of their response to ASB. (Paragraph 78)
9. We have heard evidence
that young people acting anti-socially should not all be grouped
together: there is a difference between a young person annoying
residents by playing football and someone who is terrorising a
local neighbourhood through a series of criminal and sub-criminal
activities. We accept this: however, we emphasise that this does
not mean that less serious ASB should be ignored. Activities such
as playing football in the street are not necessarily harmless:
persistent use of a garden gate, house wall or car or other inappropriate
locations as goalposts—perhaps accompanied by abuse or threats
when challenged—can amount to intolerable behaviour which
should not be dismissed by the authorities. (Paragraph 96)
10. The evidence we
received from a number of organisations—in particular, some
children's charities and civil liberties organisations, as well
as the Association of Directors of Social Services—suggests
that they assume there is a sharp distinction to be made between
prevention and enforcement. We believe that this is ultimately
self-defeating: instead, it seems to us that enforcement has a
crucial preventative role in itself that needs to be recognised
and which needs to be seen as the responsibility of everyone.
We agree with those who stress the importance of all ways of dealing
with ASB. We are deeply concerned about the potential effect on
local ASB strategies if the enforcement element is resisted by
agencies dealing with ASB at the front line. (Paragraph 101)
11. Overall, the clear
message of the evidence is that there is more to do in terms of
all means of tackling ASB—whether through diversion,
support or sanction. It is not the case that the Government's
ASB policies are overwhelmingly punitive towards children; nor
is it true that its strategy is skewed towards enforcement. On
the contrary, there is compelling evidence that in many parts
of the country, legal powers are used only relatively rarely.
We would emphasise therefore the need not to be led astray by
rhetoric but to focus on what is actually happening on the ground.
(Paragraph 116)
12. It is clear that
different philosophies, methods and tactics are having a deleterious
effect on the response to ASB at a local level. Too often, in
our view, the focus appears to be on the needs of those who commit
ASB rather than on the victims of their behaviour. The irony is
that this very focus is also failing the perpetrators. (Paragraph
134)
13. We were disappointed
to hear that social services departments and other key players
such as local education authorities, the Children and Adolescent
Mental Health Service, Youth Services and some children's NGOs
are often not fully committed to local ASB strategies. The failure
to attend meetings of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
is just one symptom of this. All these organisations are, or should
be, working with many of the same young people: as the Association
of Directors of Social Services has pointed out, anti-social young
people frequently also have support needs. Whether these organisations
are unable or reluctant to engage, it cannot be in the best interests
of the young people they serve. We discuss at paragraphs 171-72
and 370-71 how some of the problems faced by social services could
be overcome. But to the extent that non-participation reflects
a rejection of the current ASB strategy as too punitive, social
services and others are foregoing the chance actually to influence
the way in which it is carried out at local level. (Paragraph
135)
14. It is clear that
there are a number of misconceptions about the scope of data protection
legislation. There is a need for some simple user-friendly guidance
in this area, and we recommend that the Government should do more
to publicise what it has already produced, disseminating its step-by-step
guide to all agencies which have a responsibility for tackling
ASB. We conclude also that section 115 of the Crime and Disorder
Act is not having the desired effect. We recommend that the Government
considers, as part of its review of that legislation, changing
the power to share information into a duty in specified circumstances.
(Paragraph 136)
15. There is a clear
need for youth offending teams to be involved in the response
to young people who behave anti-socially—especially when
formal measures are used. We were concerned to learn that Youth
Offending Teams are not always consulted by those taking out an
ASBO. We believe that they should be consulted as a matter of
course before an application for an ASBO is made: not as a veto,
but to ensure that sufficient thought has been given to support
needs and to ensure that other measures are also taken if appropriate.
(Paragraph 137)
16. Overall, we conclude
that more could be done to aid a joined-up response to ASB at
local level. We recommend that the Government looks closely at
ways in which performance regimes can be amended to reward partnership
working. We welcome the Government's provision of funding for
ASB co-ordinators—the introduction of these has often made
a significant difference at local level—and recommend that
it works to improve their performance through targeted national
seminars and best practice guidance. We further recommend that
the Government hosts a conference specifically for the voluntary
sector to improve its response to ASB at local level. (Paragraph
138)
17. We welcome the
introduction of targeted diversionary and support schemes such
as Youth Inclusion Programmes and Youth Inclusion and Support
Panels. All the indications are that these schemes are extremely
successful and cost-effective in terms of their impact upon ASB.
(Paragraph 146)
18. Poor parenting
is often an important factor in ASB by young people. We note the
observation by Barnado's that in many cases parents have been
seeking help with their children's behaviour for some time, but
assistance is rarely given. Whilst funding has been made available
for all parenting classes attached to ASBOs, there is more limited
provision for parenting classes as an earlier preventative tool.
(Paragraph 159)
19. We welcome the
introduction of parenting orders: it is apparent that a coercive
approach is sometimes necessary and can ultimately be of great
benefit to the parents concerned. However, they are underused.
We conclude that, although some concern has been raised about
levels of funding, the main reason for this is that not everyone
is committed to the notion that a coercive approach is sometimes
necessary in order to help people to help themselves. Whilst family
group conferences and other informal techniques can be successful,
we believe that there must be a place also for a coercive order.
(Paragraph 160)
20. We welcome the
introduction of individual support orders (ISOs): these usefully
complement the aims of ASBOs in preventing ASB. We note, however,
that take-up of these is not matching expectations. We believe
that there are two main reasons for this. First, it is becoming
accepted that ISOs should be used more widely than was originally
anticipated, yet funding has not risen to match this. (Paragraph
170)
21. Second, we have
noted at paragraph 135 above our concern about the non-participation
of social services and other agencies in ASB strategies. We recognise
the strain on the budgets of social services departments and we
recognise that they may often, quite legitimately, have other
priorities. Nonetheless, the failure to participate is likely
to undermine the success of ASB work and lead to young people
not getting the assistance they require. We recommend that the
Government should review urgently the barriers to participation
and identify ways they can be overcome. (Paragraph 171)
22. There is clearly
very substantial investment by central government that is, or
could be, designed to support young people likely to be involved
in ASB, but this is distributed through a multiplicity of channels
and departments. Some like Positive Futures, the Behaviour Improvement
Programme and Connexions are designed for young people. Other
generic funding streams like Neighbourhood Renewal might be expected
to contribute to ASB strategies. We have two concerns: first,
that there do not appear to be mechanisms in some cases to ensure
that the young people who participate in these programmes are
those in the greatest need of support; second, that little of
this funding seems to be made available through social services
even though they carry most criticism for not supporting ASB work.
(Paragraph 172)
23. Given the concerns
expressed by the ADSS amongst others that the Government's ASB
strategy is currently too punitive, we are somewhat disappointed
that social services are not making greater efforts to fund support
measures such as ISOs and Parenting Orders. We recommend that
social services departments reconsider whether, by attaching greater
importance to tackling ASB, they could actually achieve more in
relation to perpetrators with support needs than they are doing
at present. (Paragraph 173)
24. We welcome the
development of acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) schemes, which
seem to have the multiple advantages of being cheap, easy to administer
and apparently remarkably successful. We are clear though that
these need to be used in appropriate cases rather than automatically
as a first resort, and agree with the current guidance of the
Home Office which is explicit on this point. We believe that the
current approach is also correct in not placing ABCs on statutory
footing: even those local authorities which do not use ABCs often
tend to use warning interviews or similar written agreements.
It is right to leave the exact details for individual authorities.
(Paragraph 181)
25. Our main concern
in relation to ABCs is that there must be consequences for breaches
for the sake of the victims of those breaches. We recommend that
the Home Office commissions research to establish whether ABCs
are being used in place of enforcement action, or whether they
are indeed being used as part of a graduated approach to unacceptable
behaviour. (Paragraph 182)
26. We welcome the
introduction by the Government of ASBOs. The ASBO appears to be
an effective tool which gives relief to communities and is more
honoured in the observance than the breach, although we recognise
that they are only just beginning to be used widely. We agree
with witnesses who argue that ASBOs are little different from
injunctions, which primarily seek to prevent rather than to punish:
in essence, they require people to amend their behaviour to an
acceptable and normal standard. We conclude that ASBOs are most
likely to succeed in changing behaviour when used in conjunction
with necessary support measures. (Paragraph 218)
27. We welcome the
suggestion from the recent Youth Justice Board research study
that the use of ASBOs is not leading to the incarceration of young
people who would otherwise have remained outside the criminal
justice system. We note, however, that more work is being done
in this area and recommend that the Home Office monitors closely
the results of the September study. We would regret any evidence
that the use of ASBOs has led to significant net-widening. (Paragraph
219)
28. We do not consider
that the inappropriate issuing of ASBOs, or the issuing of ASBOs
containing inappropriate conditions, is a major problem in practice.
We observe also that where the terms of an ASBO prove to be inappropriate,
it is relatively straightforward to apply to the court which made
the Order for the terms to be varied. There is also a right of
appeal to the Crown Court against the terms of an order. Cases
in which these options are not being taken highlight the variable
quality of legal representation rather than any difficulties with
the current provisions for variation and appeal. However, the
reliance on anecdotal evidence is damaging, and we recommend that
the Home Office commissions wide-ranging research in this area.
The research should seek to establish not only the extent of inappropriate
ASBOs, but—of critical importance—the reasons for
failures of this kind. (Paragraph 220)
29. In general, there
is a clear need for all terms of ASBOs to be evidence-based, manifestly
justified in terms of the prevention of ASB, and clearly communicated
to the young person subject to the ASBO. In our view, the cases
brought to our attention of inappropriate conditions highlight—if
any further highlighting was needed—the absolute need for
all the relevant agencies to be involved in the response to ASB.
It seems probable to us that many such problems would not have
occurred had co-ordination been adequate. (Paragraph 221)
30. We agree with
Barnado's and others that in relation to young perpetrators of
ASB, it may be inappropriate to issue ASBOs that last for a minimum
of two years. We recommend that, in the case of children under
the age of 18, the law is amended so as to give magistrates greater
discretion to set the duration of the ASBO. (Paragraph 222)
31. We conclude that
'naming and shaming' is often essential to enforce ASBOs and accept
that, with a free press, it is not possible to limit publicity
to local communities. However, whilst we accept the presumption
of publicity, there are clearly cases where publicity could be
harmful to individuals. Issues of child safety should be raised
in court where concerns exist and the discretion of magistrates
in this matter is an important responsibility that they should
exercise carefully. (Paragraph 223)
32. According to latest
figures, 42% of ASBOs are breached. We accept the point made by
witnesses that this means that 58% are not breached and that relief
is being provided to the community in these cases. This breach
rate also compares favourably with other non-custodial youth justice
interventions. Nonetheless, consideration must be given to ways
of reducing the breach rate. We believe that a number of factors
may be contributing to it, including the use of inappropriate
conditions and the imposition of ASBOs for an inappropriately
long time. We conclude that the most important factor is likely
to be insufficient support given to perpetrators who may have
problems of addiction or of mental health or may be living in
chaotic families. This underlines why the measures we outline
in relation to support are so important. (Paragraph 224)
33. We heard little
evidence as to whether the section 30 dispersal powers are effective
at local level, although they have now been in operation for over
a year. We are concerned that this reflects a wider ignorance
about the use of these powers, and recommend that the Home Office
commissions research to examine issues of effectiveness and proportionality.
(Paragraph 230)
34. We welcome the
Government's announcement that £1.25 million would be added
to help fund intensive family-based interventions. It is clear
that these types of intervention are essential if the deepest-rooted
ASB problems are not simply recycled from area to area. (Paragraph
246)
35. We conclude that
mediation is an important tool that is cost-effective and can
help to deal efficiently with neighbour nuisance cases. However,
according to the Director of Peterborough Mediation Service, mediation
is underused, with only 60% of the country currently having effective
coverage. This is a cause for concern, as are claims that mediation
is sometimes used inappropriately. (Paragraph 254)
36. In our view, the
solution to the problems both of under-use and inappropriate use
is to make the referral mechanism far more systematic throughout
the country. New Forest, Southampton and SW Hants Mediation offers
one model in taking over the complaints of local authorities so
as to assess the prospects for mediation, although we believe
that research is needed to establish whether it is as successful
as it claims. We recommend that this is done and that the Government
works with local authorities to spread this or another referral
mechanism as an example of best practice. (Paragraph 255)
37. We welcome the
introduction of the new housing-based powers, in particular, the
powers of injunction and demotion. However, it is unsatisfactory
that the Government has created these powers but not collected
the data necessary to know whether they are being used or used
effectively. Despite the fact that several of the powers, such
as possession orders and housing injunctions, have been in force
for several years, the Government does know how or how often they
are being used, whether eviction is being used appropriately,
or the impact of its ASB measures on homelessness. We note that
the Government has now committed to collecting data relating to
possession orders, with first figures to be published in 2006,
and we welcome this. However, it has no plans to do the same in
relation to housing injunctions, despite recognising that this
information is already available locally and that data relating
to ASBOs—a not dissimilar legal power—is collected.
We do not believe that asking local authorities and registered
social landlords to keep and supply records of their injunction
applications would place an undue burden on them, and we recommend
that the Government asks them to do so. In addition, we recommend
that in-depth qualitative research studies should be conducted
as a matter of urgency to determine take-up of the main housing
powers, their effectiveness in tackling ASB and their impact on
homelessness. (Paragraph 268)
38. It is essential
that the available powers and tools are used together in the most
effective manner… We have heard, for instance, of the strong
advantages of offering adequate support in conjunction with demotion
orders and of using ASBOs in conjunction with possession orders,
and we recommend that both of these points are promoted by the
Government as examples of best practice. (Paragraph 269)
39. We welcome the
principle behind the new powers for selective licensing of private
landlords. The Government is right to believe that ASB is not
a problem related solely to social housing. However, we note that
the success of the new scheme will depend very much on how it
is implemented and that the proposals are still to be fully developed.
It is important that the scheme is as unbureaucratic as possible
and that local authorities have appropriate guidance so that they
use discretion in a way that will target the unscrupulous landlords
rather than those who are victims of their tenants' behaviour.
(Paragraph 276)
40. We accept that
most private landlords cannot be expected to operate the full
range of management responses to ASB that are expected of social
landlords. Nonetheless, prompt and effective action by private
landlords could help to tackle many problems at an early stage.
We recommend that police and local authorities work together with
representatives of private landlords to produce local codes of
conduct that set out how responsible private landlords are expected
to respond to nuisance complaints and the support they can expect
from public bodies. (Paragraph 277)
41. We conclude that
no new powers are needed in relation to anti-social owner-occupiers:
ASBOs and other powers are already available and ought to be sufficient.
(Paragraph 280)
42. The Government's
response to alcohol-related disorder is currently centred around
one main principle: the assumption that the problem can be defined
in terms of, and traced to, irresponsible individuals and individual
premises. We also note that the Government's emphasis on individuals
making informed choices and being responsible for the consequences
of their actions contrasts with moves to restrict smoking in public
places. Unless it becomes clear that alcohol-related disorder
is being reduced to a really significant extent, we believe that
we should ask whether the Government should be so reliant on its
emphasis on the role of individuals. (Paragraph 296)
43. We welcome many
of the new powers that have been introduced to target individuals
who are committing alcohol-related disorder. Fixed penalty notices,
in particular, have been helpful to the police, and have allowed
them to deal with more drunk and disorderly behaviour than they
were doing previously. We believe also that the designated public
places orders are useful powers, and have the benefit of encouraging
joint working between police and local authorities. We accept
the need for greater powers to tackle underage drinking. (Paragraph
314)
44. In addition, we
welcome the Summer Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign and its
follow-up in December 2004. However, we note the contrast between
these campaigns and the more general approach towards ASB which
is all-year-round. We believe that the drive for better enforcement
must be sustained if it is to achieve any longer-term reductions
in alcohol-related disorder and recommend that this is done.
(Paragraph 315)
45. Better enforcement
is a necessary part of the response to alcohol-related disorder;
however, we conclude that on its own it is insufficient. Even
if enforcement was to improve dramatically, we believe that this
would have a limited impact. This is because the problem is not
primarily about a handful of irresponsible individuals: it is
what happens when tens of thousands of individuals under the influence
of alcohol are milling about in public areas. The central solution
lies elsewhere. (Paragraph 316)
46. We welcome many
features of the Licensing Act 2003 as sensible measures that are
likely to have a positive impact on reducing alcohol-related disorder.
In particular, we welcome the transfer of functions to local authorities,
the introduction of statutory licensing objectives, the duty on
local licensing authorities to prepare statements of licensing
policy and the greater powers to modify and vary licence conditions
and to enforce breach of those conditions… We note, however,
that the effectiveness of all these measures will depend on how
they are implemented. (Paragraph 327)
47. We were concerned
to hear that licensing authorities will be unable to make use
of their saturation policies unless they receive an objection
to an application. This flies in the face of logic and runs the
risk of exacerbating problems in the very areas that are struggling
the most with disorder. We recommend that the Government legislates
to reverse this situation before the Licensing Act 2003 comes
fully into force. We recommend further that the Government publicises
clearly to members of the public what their rights are under the
Act and how they can object to licence applications. (Paragraph
328)
48. We are concerned
also about the legal robustness of the Licensing Act 2003. We
have heard of potential for challenges in relation to saturation
and diversity and believe that there may be a possibility of legal
challenges to decisions about closing hours. We welcome the Government's
commitment to keep the Licensing Act 2003 under review, and urge
it to act quickly and decisively if there is any evidence that
there are difficulties in these areas. (Paragraph 329)
49. We conclude that
there is no clear-cut evidence as to whether more flexible licensing
hours will make current problems worse or will improve the situation.
We accept that there is unlikely to be wholesale moves towards
24 hour opening as such, but it is to be expected that many licensed
premises will after a time apply to stay open longer, and in some
cases much longer than currently. Moreover, once one place does
extend its opening hours then others in the area are likely to
follow suit because of competition. Staggered drinking hours may
reduce some flashpoints, but the changes may make it more difficult
for the police in an operational sense to predict where and when
officers need to be deployed. We recommend that local licensing
authorities work closely with police to ensure that this is addressed.
In the meantime, we urge the Government to monitor the situation
on the ground extremely closely and to seek to change the law
if necessary. (Paragraph 330)
50. Overall, we conclude
that aspects of the new licensing regime, such as the role to
be played by local authorities, will have a useful contribution
to make. This is not least because it is clear—from the
results of the Summer Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign and
elsewhere—that some premises are acting irresponsibly and
contributing directly to local drunkenness and disorderly behaviour.
However, we agree with witnesses that the ability of the licensing
regime to change fundamentally the nature of town and city
centres is likely to be limited. This is because the central problem
does not rest in individual premises, but in public space. As
Professor Hobbs mentioned (at paragraph 284), research has shown
a correlation between city centre licensed capacity and street
assaults. (Paragraph 331)
51. Although sections
of the alcohol industry are working to try to improve the contribution
of local pubs and clubs to tackling local disorder and to reduce
the number of irresponsible promotions, we conclude that there
are still far too many examples of pubs and clubs acting irresponsibly.
We were particularly concerned to hear from the Chief Constable
of Nottinghamshire that little has changed in the last six years
in this regard. (Paragraph 340)
52. We believe that
imaginative use needs to be made of new licensing powers by local
licensing authorities. In particular, we note that some pubs and
clubs have voluntarily adopted dispersal policies and that many
licensed premises are members of Pubwatch, although not all are.
We recommend that the Government pushes hard for local licensing
authorities to use licence conditions as a mechanism for achieving
a far more widespread introduction of these types of action in
areas which have been experiencing problems of disorder. In addition,
we see the licensing framework as the best mechanism for tackling
irresponsible promotions and recommend that the Government produces
strong guidance in this area. (Paragraph 341)
53. One route to tackling
irresponsible promotions is the introduction of minimum pricing
policies. We have heard a great deal of confusion on this point:
several witnesses told us that local authorities are currently
unable to introduce such policies; however, the Office of Fair
Trading has advised that competition law is not necessarily a
barrier as long as prices are fixed by local authorities and not
by trade associations or individual pubs and clubs. We recommend,
if it has not already done so, that the Office of Fair Trading
clarifies this point directly to local authorities and that local
authorities consider seriously the benefits of such a scheme,
implemented through licence conditions and used in areas characterised
by high levels of disorder. (Paragraph 342)
54. We welcome the
acceptance of the principle that clubs and pubs ought to contribute
more to the cost of disorder in some circumstances, as contained
in the proposals for alcohol disorder zones. However, we are concerned
that these proposals may be difficult to operate in practice.
They seem to rest on the premise that individual licensed premises
must be at fault for surrounding disorder; however, it is clear
to us that problems of disorder can occur even if all the surrounding
licensed premises are operating perfectly responsibly. (Paragraph
347)
55. The extension
of licensing hours works in the industry's favour and is likely
to increase its profits. In return, we believe that pubs and clubs
in areas designated by local authorities, in conjunction with
the police, should pay a mandatory contribution to help solve
local problems of alcohol-related disorder. Local authorities
should have the discretion to decide whether this should be used
to contribute towards the cost of local policing, the cost of
late-night transport or other necessary facilities linked to the
effects of night-time drinking. We believe that the size of the
contribution should vary according to the size of the premise.
It should be completely unrelated to issues of fault: the principle
should be that licensing mechanisms will be used to maximum effect
to require every pub and club in the area to act responsibly,
and a mandatory contribution will be taken to help pay for the
aggregate effect of large-scale drunkenness in public space. (Paragraph
348)
56. Overall, the problem
of alcohol-related disorder must be addressed through proper city
planning, in its widest sense. We accept that not everything can
change immediately: it will take some time to reverse the over-concentration
of licensed premises in some areas of towns and cities; equally,
it will take time to introduce a greater diversity of premises
into an area. We note in this respect that a new Planning Policy
Statement 6 is anticipated which may deal with some of these issues:
the test will be whether it enables local authorities to introduce
greater diversity. However, some measures can and should be taken
immediately. (Paragraph 356)
57. We recommend that
all local authorities with a designated disorder area should have
a duty to produce a plan indicating how they will provide the
infrastructure to cope with the night-time economy and what would
be needed to finance that plan, taking into account the mandatory
contributions from the alcohol industry. (Paragraph 357)
58. In addition, we
conclude that adequate late-night transport is absolutely essential
if a real impact is to be made on levels of alcohol-related disorder.
We recommend, as a matter of urgency, that the Government identifies
the 50 areas in which alcohol-related disorder is highest, and
works closely with local government in helping it to solve any
logistical problems. We recommend also that in these 50 areas,
the Government should assess whether mandatory contributions from
the alcohol industry are likely to be sufficient to cover the
cost of local transport and provide additional funding if necessary.
(Paragraph 358)
59. We commend the
Home Office Anti-social Behaviour Unit on its work. Its image
amongst practitioners is particularly impressive. We recognise
its achievement in raising the awareness of ASB and in improving
the response of local actors. The achievement is all the more
notable given the relatively small budget from which the Unit
has worked. (Paragraph 360)
60. We believe that
much of the work of the Anti-social Behaviour Unit—the engagement
of local partnerships, the close contacts with local authorities
and other key local actors, the close monitoring of the use of
enforcement powers with work to identify and tackle barriers to
their effectiveness on the ground, and the use of seminars and
other training events to drive awareness—would make a difference
in helping to reduce alcohol-related disorder. We note that in
the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, it was intended that the
ASB Unit should take on the enforcement role in relation to alcohol
disorder, and recommend that it be given significant responsibilities
in this area. (Paragraph 361)
61. In addition, we
recommend that the ASB Unit should take over some of the responsibility
for promoting and monitoring the housing-based injunctive powers.
Whilst we accept that re-organisation should not be done for its
own sake, we believe that it would be particularly valuable to
extend the "Together" approach here given the similarity
of these powers to ASBOs and our earlier observations about the
current level of knowledge in this area. (Paragraph 362)
62. We would encourage
the Government to continue to produce guidance on the most effective
tactics and strategies for tackling ASB. We note the strength
of the evidence we have received in favour of a tiered approach
to tackling individual problems, but we also stress the overriding
importance of seeking to protect local communities and witnesses.
We believe that local ASB strategies should not hesitate to move
swiftly to introduce preventative measures and sanctions if these
can bring quick relief to local people. (Paragraph 369)
63. We welcome the
Government's commitment to the prevention of ASB through diversionary
and support measures and believe that the balance of its strategy
is about right. We conclude that substantial resources are already
being made available that could assist in preventative work with
young people and dysfunctional families. However, the funding
streams are complex and we are not confident that the resources
are always being targeted on those most in need of support. Services
which are required to play a key role in ASB strategies, like
social services and Chilren and Adolescent Mental Health Service
not always seem to have access to additional funding, whilst other
activities funded through DCMS or DfES may not be reaching the
right people. (Paragraph 370)
64. We recommend that
the Government undertakes a review of these funding mechanisms
with a view to allowing more flexible use of these funds at local
level. We believe that this move would be in keeping with the
general direction of children's policy. (Paragraph 371)
65. Notwithstanding
this, we have also identified four specific areas in which we
believe that a small amount of additional Government spending
will have a disproportionate impact on reducing ASB. First, we
urge the Government to listen to the arguments put forward by
the Youth Justice Board and recommend that additional funding
be provided for a very significant expansion of the Youth Inclusion
Programme in particular, with extra funding for Youth Inclusion
and Support Panels awaiting the outcome of full evaluation. We
believe that this would ultimately be a cost-saving decision.
Second, we welcome the introduction by the Government of a Parenting
Fund and welcome the provision of £1.5 million during 2003-04
to the Youth Justice Board for additional parenting work associated
with ASB. We recommend that this £1.5 million becomes a regular
investment in order to allow parenting programmes to be targeted
for parents whose children have been identified as being most
at risk of future anti-social behaviour. Third, we recommend that
£0.5 million be invested (to match the £0.5 million
already being provided by the Youth Justice Board) so as to improve
the take-up of individual support orders. We believe that additional
investment would reduce the breach rate of ASBOs and therefore
again be a cost-saving measure. Fourth, we welcome the £2.25
million investment for targeted family interventions: however,
we recommend that the Government increases this in order to help
ensure that the deepest-rooted ASB problems are not simply recycled
from area to area. (Paragraph 372)
66. We conclude that,
in responding to ASB, Government Departments have been working
together in a generally coherent manner. However, we have also
identified areas in the course of our inquiry in which co-ordination
could be improved further. We note also that there are now a number
of local partnership arrangements, each being promoted by their
respective Departments. These include Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnerships, local Criminal Justice Boards, Children Strategic
Partnerships, Children's Trusts and Local Strategic Partnerships.
We recommend that the Government should look closely at the links
between these partnerships and ensure that there are no unnecessary
overlaps. (Paragraph 379)
67. We welcome the
actions of the Government in improving the redress of individuals
and communities whose concerns around ASB are not being addressed.
In particular, we welcome the proposals in the White Paper on
police reform for trigger powers to force local agencies to respond
to ASB. We recommend that, if these proposals are adopted, the
Government ensures that the use of the trigger powers is closely
monitored and used to feed into the evidence base about the quality
of local responses to ASB. (Paragraph 383)
| 
