Antisocial Behaviour

: The Division bell interrupted me as I was listing Government programmes that I support. I had reached the end of the list, so I shall commend to the Government a few programmes and initiatives that they might like to consider adding to the positive measures to support individuals and communities. Shelter's inclusion project should certainly be considered if it has the positive impact and successful results that it claims for it in its material. Anything the Minister can persuade his ministerial colleagues to do in terms of encouraging sport and community involvement generally would be very welcome. To give a constituency example, a summer football tournament for young people in Whaddon appears, anecdotally, to have a direct impact on the reduction of antisocial behaviour while it is taking place. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, positive solutions are sometimes as simple as the provision of somewhere for young people to hang out. Occasionally, however, as a last resort, more punitive solutions have to be sought. Let me make it clear that the Liberal Democrats are not against antisocial behaviour orders; we just feel that they should be used appropriately and be supported by more positive measures. Indeed, Liberal Democrat-controlled Cheltenham has played a pioneering role in exploring the use of ASBOs—18 have been granted—but they should not be a blunt instrument. Cheltenham and other Liberal Democrat councils such as Islington have also pioneered the use of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are, perhaps, a cheaper and more effective option before people reach full ASBO level. We have welcomed those, too. Other measures, which might be politely called coercive options, include parental control agreements. In addition, we have suggested community justice panels, the idea being that, if both parties agree, before a case comes to court, the community, and possibly the victims, could play a bigger role in deciding on the appropriate punishment for an offender. That would seem to give an important voice to the victims of antisocial behaviour, who have not been mentioned a great deal in this debate. The Committee highlights the importance, if any of these proposals is to work, of joined-up thinking and partnership at local level. In Cheltenham, the crime and disorder reduction partnership works hard to try to bring all parties together, and to ensure that there is joined-up thinking. Even so, last year the youth service in Cheltenham complained that ASBOs were being imposed without its knowledge and without consultation with the young offenders' schools. The report highlights the need for more work to be done to ensure that everybody is talking to everybody else, so that there is a joined-up approach. Perhaps the appointment of dedicated antisocial behaviour caseworkers would be a way to achieve that. We must not think of ASBOs as a quick win or an easy solution. They are designed to tackle a complex and difficult problem, and should never be turned into a political football if that can be avoided. Care needs to be taken that they are not applied in an arbitrary or peculiar way, as anecdotal evidence from various organisations suggests may now be the case. Even if there is not a general problem on that front, and ASBOs are addressing the wider problem relatively effectively, a small number of cases of injustice or the arbitrary use of ASBOs should cause us great concern. In that vein, it is a shame that the Home Secretary was quoted last December as wanting to name and shame councils that were not using enough ASBOs. If we are effectively tackling antisocial behaviour at local level; if councils such as Rochdale have found effective alternatives to ASBOs, such as the Shelter inclusion project; and if we develop community justice panels as an alternative to ASBOs, we will have less antisocial behaviour and fewer ASBOs. That is a solution we should all be seeking.