Antisocial Behaviour

: When estates are being designed, we cannot assume that if we build lots of houses we will, automatically, overnight, create a community. We should increasingly think about ““i”” before ““e””—that is, investment and infrastructure before expansion. In the south-east, the Government are certainly investing considerable amounts of money in new towns such as Crawley and Milton Keynes, and in seaside towns, such as Hastings, that need refurbishment. However, if they expect areas such as Banbury, Bicester and Didcot in Oxfordshire to take a large share of new housing, there has also got to be investment in their infrastructure so that they can provide recreational opportunities for young people. We have been promised—as, I suspect, has every other part of the country—new and more police community support officers. It would be good to have them, and to know that they will become a permanently funded part of the Thames Valley police, or whatever its successor might be. There is some concern on the part of the police authority that, as has happened in the case of many Government projects, police community support officers will have funding for two or three years but that it will soon get lost in the general police authority budget. Then there will be a risk that a choice has to be made between established police constables and community support officers. That would be rather self-defeating. Many communities, whether they are housing estates in towns such as Bicester and Banbury or villages, want the reassurance of seeing uniformed people out on the streets. I remember in my youth—it was not that long ago—regularly seeing police officers cycling or walking through villages. Indeed, at one stage a sergeant and two constables covered Bloxham, the village in which I live, and several other villages. Of course, policing has changed. However, people who live on housing estates and in villages still want to see that cover. Can we therefore have community support officers as speedily as possible, and can we ensure that they do not get lost somewhere down the line in the police budget? A parish in my constituency has become confused and believes that it will have to fund community support officers. When the Minister winds up his remarks, will he reassure the Chamber that the community support officers will be funded from the grants in aid for police authorities, and that local communities will not be expected to fund them themselves? Otherwise, we could get into an invidious position in which rich parishes would be able to afford community support officers, and poorer parishes, with perhaps fewer high precepts, would not. Antisocial behaviour orders and potential breaches of those orders require a magistrates court system that works. I would just like to flag up the bizarre situation in north Oxfordshire, as I have the opportunity to do so. The situation may be untypical, but last week the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned no fewer than three contested trials in the magistrates court on one day, simply because it did not have sufficient prosecutors. Perversely, the local superintendent of police tells me that the detection rates of the Thames Valley police are increasing faster than the CPS can advise them on whether they should charge people or bring prosecutions. If someone pleads not guilty, there are no prosecutors to try them. Eventually, the magistrates become fed up with cases being adjourned again and again, and in due course under the concept of natural justice dismiss them for want of prosecution. That is not fair on anyone. It is not fair on the victims, because they may well not receive compensation orders, and it is not fair on the community. Nor is it fair on those who are charged, because there may well be quite a lot of publicity in the local newspaper about the fact that they have been charged, and they never really receive the opportunity to clear their name, if that is what would have happened in a contested trial if they had been found not guilty. The Law Officers who are responsible for the CPS need to ensure that the CPS has adequate numbers of prosecutors to keep up with charging people who are arrested, with giving advice and with bringing prosecutions. That takes me to my final point. Who in the criminal justice system takes the lead on ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts? Is it the police, the local authority, the district council responsible for housing or the probation service? A constituency such as mine, which is semi-rural, is different from cities that have single departments and a single local authority. It is not that anyone is failing to do their job properly, but I am sometimes worried that there is a lack of overall grip and that no one is saying, ““We have issued this number of ASBOs. Why is there is a problem on that estate, and how can we deal with this?”” I accept that district councils and the police are working more closely together, but points of concern remain. Where does the probation service step in? Where are the concepts of restorative justice? The geography of all this can become quite complicated, which makes it difficult for communities to know to whom they should turn if things are going wrong. Should they turn to the local authority to let it know that the ASBOs are not working, or should they turn to the police? We need a clearer understanding of who should lead on this, and who is the point of reference. The Home Affairs Committee has done a good service to the House. If one read the tabloids, one would assume that everything was going wrong. There are difficulties, but communities generally want to tackle them, and we need both prevention and enforcement, and for all the different bits of the machinery of justice and the machinery of government to work well. If that can happen, communities can be more harmonious and can be safer and happier places for people to live in. I suspect that the issues that unite the House are far greater than the issues that may sometimes divide us.