Antisocial Behaviour

: I do not want to provoke you, Sir John, but some of the evidence in the Committee's report shows that councils controlled by the Liberal Democrats rarely use antisocial behaviour orders. I shall go through some of the myths and the answers given in the report, because it is worth putting them on record. The report goes through the arguments against the often-used allegation that antisocial behaviour orders criminalise juveniles, and that they use a lower threshold of evidence than would be required for a criminal conviction. Paragraph 184 makes it clear that that is not the case. One of the other accusations made against ASBOs is that, because 35 per cent. of them are breached, they are not effective. Martin Lee, an official who works for Manchester city council, has enthusiastically and effectively been responsible for protecting many in my constituency and elsewhere in Manchester. He said in evidence to the Committee that if 35 per cent. of orders are breached, almost two thirds are successful and that, as a result, many people's lives are better. Although 35 per cent. of orders are breached, the nature of the ASBO means that even if a person goes back to the neighbourhood and makes someone else's life misery, the courts immediately have recourse to the order to take action. Although the ASBO will have been breached, it does not meant that protection is ended; it means that the next level of protection for the community is put in place. Another accusation is that ASBOs are often brought maliciously. Evidence to the Home Affairs Committee shows that that is limited. Manchester city council gave evidence that, of the 4,500 ASBOs for which it was responsible, only 10 had been brought maliciously. I have heard evidence in my advice bureau that the perpetrators sometimes come forward and get their retaliation in first. It can take time to sort that out, but it is sorted in the end. It is no different from anything else in the criminal justice system—bad people often lie and try to get in first, but it is a relatively small problem. Those who work in the probation service, social services and other services often say that the problem is caused by a clash of lifestyles or a lack of tolerance shown by the elderly. That is rather insulting to people who suffer such problems, and they deserve the protection that the public services can give. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) said that there have been cases in which people with Asperger's or other conditions have had inappropriate ASBOs made against them or in which the wrong conditions have been attributed to people. To deal with the latter point first, such cases are relatively rare. Let us look in detail at one of the examples in the report. A young man had been banned from going into a motor car because he committed offences in motor cars, which meant that he could not get support from elsewhere, a car ride away. That is unfortunate and may have been inappropriate—maybe the condition should have been more specific—but when it comes to the balance between helping somebody who has made somebody's life miserable and stopping them from doing so, I would vote for stopping the behaviour and delaying the support. Such cases are not always as simple and straightforward as they seem. People have come to my advice bureau and said that someone with an ASBO had Tourette syndrome. Like any hon. Member would be, I was concerned; it seemed inappropriate. Such cases make the law press and local newspapers, but when I followed the case through there was no medical evidence whatsoever that the young man had Tourette's. When we consider the complaints and criticisms, many are unfounded. I have two points about the myths and arguments about the subject which are worth dealing with. First, some people have complained that the publicity given to individuals who are in receipt of an ASBO is wrong if young people are named. That criticism, when we sit back and analyse it, is wrong. A 15-year-old in my constituency took a chainsaw to cut down a camera that was trying to provide some surveillance and protection for people, drove a car into another car and set houses on fire. He was a serious problem. At the time that he received the ASBO he was in prison for something even more serious. When he comes out of prison he will be banned from the area. In case that young man breaches his ASBO, people on the estate need to know who he is and what he looks like so that they can report it. I am in favour of naming and shaming. I am in favour of people knowing who has an ASBO so that the community can get proper protection. It is often said in a well-meaning way that some of the young thugs use an ASBO as a badge of honour and are proud to receive it. It makes them appear tough among their peers and gives them status that they otherwise would not have. There is an element of truth in that. However, if the ASBO is appropriate, I do not see that that is any reason for not making it. If it stops a young person going on to an estate or stops behaviour that has been a problem for someone else, it should be made. The fact that he, or in some cases she, might feel good about it for a short period of time does not mean that it should not be made. I have people with ASBOs coming to my advice surgery and they do not like them at all. The fact that a minority of people feel that they are suffering should not be taken as an argument against ASBOs, and nor should the argument that the process criminalises young people. As the report clearly shows, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen noted, many people with ASBOs are already known to the police and are in the system. Many of the agencies involved should have intervened more effectively earlier in the process. The report's treatment of antisocial behaviour and antisocial behaviour orders, then, is absolutely excellent. Having served on the Standing Committee that considered what became the Licensing Act 2003, I read the Select Committee's comments on licensing issues with interest. However, I diverge slightly from the Committee on one issue, which goes back to the point on which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) intervened. When we discussed the Bill, I asked the Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is the Minister responsible for the issue, how many times the police had charged publicans with selling alcohol to people who were inebriated. The figure for the year in which we were discussing the Bill was six. Anyone who goes into the centre of Southampton, Manchester or Birmingham, or even into the centres of relatively small market towns, on a Friday or Saturday or, indeed, on other evenings will find publicans happily selling alcohol to already inebriated young people, many of whom, as my right hon. Friend recognised, are under age. I do not say that there is a total solution to the some of the problems of alcohol abuse in city centres, but having police sitting in vans, tooled up in case there is a big problem, is not the right response to the problem of publicans selling alcohol to under-age people who are already drunk. I do not pretend that any of this has an easy solution, but all the powers in the law should be used at an appropriate time. The police have withdrawn from the appropriate level of policing and they should not do so. There is another point about licensed premises in city centres. My right hon. Friend said that it has taken 15 years for the accretion of licences to come about and he hopes that there will be more diversity in 15 years. However, I do not really agree with him that the closeness of the pubs is the cause of antisocial behaviour. I know that comparing drinking habits between countries is difficult because there are different cultures, but if one goes to a city such as Seattle, one will find huge ranges of drinking establishments in a line that do not cause a problem. There is something in the way that young British people drink that causes the problems, and if we spread those centres out, we may spread the problem. The other side of the police response to drinking—dealing with problems once they have arisen, as opposed to before they have arisen—may well become more difficult.