Full text of speech given by Alun Michael, Minister of State for the Home Office, to the "Targeting Anti-Social Behaviour" conference in Nottingham, England, on June 12, 1997.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address you all today and I want to stress the importance with which the Government regards this issue of anti-social behaviour. I understand the feelings which it arouses. Disorderly, anti-social, behaviour causes alarm and distress in the public, heightens the fear of crime and if unchecked can lead to escalating criminal behaviour.

Over the past 20 years, I have seen situations in which neither elected representatives nor officers of the police and local authority were able to alleviate the misery and despair experienced by ordinary people – often elderly and vulnerable people – and often over an extended period of time. That is why we are certainly not going to forget the "order" part of the law and order package.

We are going to tackle the unacceptable level of anti-social behaviour and crime on our streets and ensure that petty criminality, especially amongst the young, is seriously addressed. Our measures to do this will be included in the major Crime and Disorder Bill which we are pledged to introduce in this first session of the new Parliament. The Bill will be the first major step in implementing our strategy of zero tolerance on crime and disorder.

I am not able yet to give you the fine detail of the Bill as yet, but I want to set out our clear intentions. The detail will depend on our consideration of all the relevant factors and our assessment of what will be really effective. We will be consulting widely before reaching final (decisions), and I welcome today’s event as a stage in that (process). I hope you will help us get it right by contributing your views and your experience.

We certainly face a considerable task if we are to restore public confidence – at the moment there are several things which fill the public with anger and frustration.

We cannot allow this to go on. We must act.

When you consider that only one crime in 56 ends up with a punishment by a court and only one crime in 750 ends up with a custodial sentence, it becomes obvious that we need to do much more to prevent crime and to promote community safety. Our commitment to those goals has never been in doubt – but the challenge is now for us to turn that commitment into direct and enduring initiatives to reclaim and transform our streets and our estates.

Local authorities are essential to the development of good crime prevention partnerships and to effective delivery of crime prevention strategies on the ground. If Michael Howard needed a bit of persuading about that, it was because he found it difficult to use the words "local" and "authority" together... (laughter) ... fifteen years as a city councillor in Cardiff and working with local government before being elected to Parliament, so perhaps I come from a different background. Much good work has been done in recent years, but we want to build on and expand on this.

What we will do is to place a new joint responsibility on the police and local authorities to develop statutory partnerships to prevent crime and enhance community safety.

As well, as I indicated, there are many groups around the country where local people are producing excellent results in the fight against crime by working together and jointly tackling crime and disorder. So the potential is there, locally, to be built up. A national strategy has yet to be developed, however. The benefits of the multi-agency approach are not yet being felt right across the country.

We are determined to change this, and believe that local authorities and the police are best placed to provide the catalyst for this to happen. Of course these two agencies are already key players in many partnership schemes; they bring their particular views and expertise as do many other statutory and voluntary bodies. But we must change perceptions of the ownership of crime problems. We must move beyond the view that the police alone can resolve all of the community's problems.

I know that I am speaking to the converted now, both in local government and with regards to the police.

We will, therefore, create a new community safety responsibility which will ensure that the vital work of the police and police authorities is brought together locally within a coördinated multi-agency framework which involve the residents, voluntary organisation and the business community. This will make certain that everybody’s effort is complementary, mutually supportive, and above all better focused on key local problems. Clearly, with the wide ranging responsibilities local authorities already have, their involvement is vital. But so too is that of other local groups. It is not about directing anybody, it is about working together – influencing and challenging what everybody is currently doing to ensure that a truly effective common approach is adopted.

Young people, given the chance, can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem as I have seen in judging the Prudential Youth Action Awards in recent years. Individual people can contribute in a variety of ways, not least, for instance, as special constables – and I must say that I was rather taken aback by the excellence of some of the examples that we saw last week when we presented the Ferrers Awards. And local people can help each other – and that is being shown by the work of Neighbourhood Watch which, with the development of the national association, is becoming increasingly imaginative and flexible in the way that it works.

In addition, building on our belief that effective measures against crime and disorder are best undertaken locally, we intend to require local councils, and the police, again in partnership with the other agencies, to analyse the reality of local crime together, and then together to agree community targets for its reduction as part of a joint strategy at a local level. It will then be for the relevant partnership body to assume the lead in the tasks needed to meet the targets. These will address local problems and provide a real focus for the whole community, not just crime prevention practitioners to aim at.

Let me say a little on youth justice.

The principle of partnership is particularly important when it comes to dealing with young offenders. Young people are especially associated with the sort of disorder and anti-social behaviour which your conference today is considering. It is estimated that young offenders account for one million recorded crimes a year. That level of disruption is clearly intolerable. That is why tackling youth crime and reforming the youth justice system is high on the Government's agenda.

The current youth justice system does not do nearly enough to tackle young people's offending behaviour. More often than not, it reinforces it. Intervention is often slow, inconsistent and inappropriate, with the result that young offenders seem to be getting away with their crimes.

We are determined to reverse that trend. The response to youth crime must be rapid, consistent and proportionate. We will overhaul the youth justice system to achieve that, and we will address the issues which lead to crime in the first place.

At the heart of our approach is the determination to reassert the sense of personal, and social, responsibility. We want to encourage a society which recognises and respects the rights and responsibilities of individuals, and promotes a sense of community. We want a society where people are free from fear and respect the rights of others.

Much of the anti-social behaviour and petty offending for which young people are responsible is born of selfishness or sheer thoughtlessness. We want to make sure that action is taken to nip this kind of behaviour in the bud, to make young people realise their responsibilities and to change attitudes and behaviour before offending habits have a chance to take a firm hold.

We must make the link between crime and punishment clear to young people, so that they face up to the consequences of their offending. No sensible parent would dream of waiting for months before punishing a child for misbehaviour, and then expect the child to learn its lesson from the punishment. Yet that is exactly how the criminal justice system deals with young people. It takes an average of four and a half months to "process" a young offender from offence to sentence, and usually longer for a persistent offender. We have pledged to halve this time for persistent offenders. Measures to help achieve this will be included in the Crime and Disorder Bill.

We will end repeat and inconsistent cautioning which allows young offenders to offend over and over again with apparent immunity. There will be a new Final Warning. This will usually trigger community interventions by local multi-agency Youth Offender Teams, with action tailored to the offender's circumstances.

Again, the punishments which a court imposes must also instil a sense of responsibility and aim to effect a genuine change in the behaviour of the young offender. We will introduce a new reparation order, requiring the offender to make amends to the victim or generally to the community at large for the damage and distress they have caused. We will also empower the courts to impose an action plan order, which is intended to be a highly focused disposal, designed to tackle offending at an early stage and to change young offenders’ attitudes and behaviour.

These, and other, community sentences for young offenders will be planned and supervised by the new Youth Offender Teams.

We will also be reviewing the provision of custodial facilities for young offenders, and setting up a National Youth Justice Board to ensure consistency and coherence.

It is important too that all young offenders are made to take responsibility for their actions. At present, under the archaic law of doli incapax, the criminal law assumes that offenders aged 10 to 13 are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong. We will reverse that assumption and make the law catch up with common sense. In general, children of this age do know what is right and what is wrong, and they ought to be treated as if they do unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. So it is always open to proving that a youngster did not know what he was doing was wrong – there should not be a general assumption.

Helping parents to change offending behaviour by their children has been given insufficient attention. We want to ensure that parents are willing – and able – to accept responsibility for their children’s behaviour. So, new parental responsibility orders will ensure that parents face up to their responsibility for their children's misbehaviour and that they are given the guidance and support to fulfil that responsibility. A new child protection order will deal with young people allowed to wander the streets unsupervised at night. Such neglect is not fair to the child or to those who may become victims if that child turns to crime.

Having said that I must again stress that young people are our future and we should draw them into being part of the solution not just see them as "the problem". Older people, I remind you, have always bemoaned the behaviour of the next generation. Plato put a diatribe about young people into the mouth of Socrates, while I treasure the words of William of Ockliam in the 14th Century.

You see, nothing changes. The Spice Girls were around in the 14th Century!

We are determined not just to deal effectively with offending behaviour, but as well to take action to help prevent young people turning to crime in the first place. The Government recognises that crime does not happen in a social vacuum. That is why we will be tackling crime – and its causes – not just through our criminal policy, but through the promotion of consistent and responsible social policies. We will take action to combat unemployment, drugs, bad parenting, failing schools and low educational achievement.

From my own experience working with unemployed young people before I was elected to Parliament, and with those on the verge of delinquent activity, I know our New Deal for young people aged 18-25 is absolutely central to this Government’s strategy. Our balance of clear, swift messages to those who misbehave and opportunity for those who will take that opportunity is surely the way to stop the devil finding work for idle hands. We are working across Departments in Government to provide jobs and opportunity in training young people aged between 18 and 25. I can tell you that that is a policy which is being approached in a very very fast (way), and with a great sense of urgency during the course of the last month. The despair which the failures of the last Government engendered on our young people is precisely what led me to stand for Parliament and it is not unrelated to youth crime and other social problems of our time.

Again, Jack Straw is setting up a new Task Force on Youth Justice so that we can draw on the expertise and ideas of those at the sharp end of dealing with young offenders and drive through the much-needed reforms of the youth justice system to which I have referred. We want these reforms to be based on consent, openness and partnership.

Can I mention one specific measure that we will be introducing by means of the Crime and Disorder Bill, namely the new Community Safety Order.

We recognise how plagued many neighbourhoods are by continual anti-social behaviour by individuals or groups of individuals. Looking at the estates for which some of you here are responsible, research shows that up to 20% of housing managers’ time is spent on dealing with nuisance behaviour and that between 2% and 10% of tenants on any given estate have been the subject of complaints from other people on the estate. This kind of persistent harassment of a community can devastate people’s lives.

Local authorities like Coventry have done their best to tackle the problem using existing legislation. There has been a commitment by leading councillors here in Nottingham – and that is also true around the country. Something was done to tackle the problem in the field of social housing by the new provisions in Part V of the Housing Act 1996, proposals were worked up in consultation with the local authorities. But we do not think that it goes far enough. The Community Safety Order, which we sought unsuccessfully to introduce in the last Parliament is an example of our more comprehensive approach.

We propose that local authorities and the police will be able to seek this new order from the courts. The order will be addressed to a named individual or individuals and it will focus on specific behaviour which has caused innocent people distress or fear.

I believe that this measure will be a tough and effective way of making our communities safer places for all. Everybody has a responsibility not to disturb others’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their environment.

Local authorities and the police will also need to develop local strategies to ensure that applications for community safety orders are not made frivolously, or to the disadvantage of any specific group in society, where there are racial or other unacceptable or discriminatory grounds. Particular care will also be needed in respect of mentally disordered people in the community. We are not in the business of restricting people’s liberties wantonly, behaviour which is simply unusual or different from generally accepted norms should not be penalised unless it can be shown to threaten the safety of the community. Those safeguards need to be in place but, frankly, there is a gap in the law which we are determined to fill with these Community Safety Orders.

I should just mention as well that Protection From Harassment Bill, know as "the stalkers" Bill, is now through Parliament and I announced yesterday [ June 11, 1997] that we were bringing into effect the provisions of that Bill on 16th June. It is something that many of us campaigned for over many years which will help protect people from harassment and the fear of violence – particularly those women who have been victims of "stalking" and whose cases the police have felt powerless to intervene.

We also intend to act in relation to racial prejudice and hostility because this is particularly nasty accompaniments of some outbreaks of disorder and more serious crime.

Can I just refer briefly to another significant associate of disorder, particularly in our town and city centres and at particular spots where numbers gather: that is alcohol. We are considering a range of proposals for tackling drink-related crime. These include: first, a penalty points scheme for pubs, which would involve licensees incurring points for instances of violence linked with their premises; an accumulated level of points would trigger action, possibly leading to loss of licence; secondly, ensuring that magistrates are informed of arrest statistics at or near licensed premises with licences being revoked for premises which are a regular focus for violence; and, third, requiring city centre pubs and clubs to use glasses made of toughened glass to reduce injuries from "glassing". Several senior police officers have told me that drink-related violence is now one of the biggest problems they face. We are determined to do all we can to help.

These and other measures are for the future. But some steps we are taking immediately. We are very concerned in particular about under-age drinking and its link with crime. In that context we have shared the anxiety about the promotion and sale of alcopops to children. The Home Secretary has set up a Ministerial Group to look at the issue. My colleague, George Howarth, is holding urgent talks with the drinks industry to demand swift action. If we are not satisfied with the response, we are prepared to take action ourselves.

You will also be aware that we are addressing another scourge of our communities – namely drugs. The Prime Minister announced before the election that we would draw together everybody – the police, local authorities, schools, everyone, in order to tackle the menace with the appointment of a "Drugs Czar" to provide action on this issue. This is important in tackling crime and disorder. Drugs not only do devastating harm in themselves. No-one now doubts that a good deal of acquisitive crime, and consequent disorder, arises from the need of drug misusing offenders to fund expensive drug habits.

I mentioned earlier the need for a partnership between local authorities and the police. I want to conclude by emphasising the central rôle of the police in creating a society free from the sort of crime and disorderly, anti-social behaviour and the fear they engender with which we are all too familiar.

The legislation I have described will establish the framework which will allow the police to tackle crime and disorder more effectively. But legislation does not decide exactly how police officers behave day to day. Policing styles are also important.

There is no single right answer. There is no magic recipe which says that this is the way to do it and everything will be perfect. That is why we emphasise a local approach to community safety and why we emphasise local partnerships.

What works may be "zero tolerance", though there has been much use of that expression without a real understanding of what it means. To us, it does not mean intolerance: it means nipping things in the bud, it means acting early before things get out of hand, it means recognising the petty events which destabilise a community before a trend develops. It means keeping the peace. It means building the confidence of the public. What is more important than the terminology is what makes the police effective in preventing and reducing crime.

The one important message of successful "zero tolerance" policing is that even in the face of formidable crime problems, the police can make a real difference. With a clear strategy, a clear focus and effective management, policing can have a big impact on the quality of life of local communities. Decline in the quality of life is not inevitable.

I do not accept the bald statement of the previous government in their 1993 White Paper that "the main job of the police is to catch criminals". That is to forget the order part of law and order. The police were established to "keep the peace". After all, the fear of being caught is the biggest deterrent to crime. But policing is also about preventing and reducing crime and maintaining order on our streets and in our communities. Quality of life should be at the heart of our approach to policing.

One of the main lessons from discussion of "zero tolerance" is that the police must work with and for the community which local authorities represent and that is a point which has been made cogently by Charles Pollard, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. The police must secure, and work with, the support of the communities that they police. That does not mean "soft" policing. It is a complete misconception that any local community wants the police to turn a blind eye to crime. One of the findings emerging from a thematic inspection currently being completed by the Inspectorate of Constabulary is the importance that communities attach to quality of life issues. Local communities have a very strong wish to see anti-social behaviour tackled vigorously. That means, tackled vigorously with the consent of those communities in ways that those communities understand, not imposing the will of the police without investing in securing that consent and support. The success of "zero tolerance" reflects the lesson that investment in community consent and support is part of making it work. I will say it again: the police cannot succeed alone. They need to work with other agencies, with local government and with the community to achieve common goals. I do not draw the stark distinction some do between "zero tolerance" and "problem-solving" or "problem-oriented" policing – more catchphrases.

"Zero tolerance" is an approach to be used within a structured, clear, strategy for tackling local crime problems. What matters is what works and making it happen.

Many police forces have begun to learn the lessons of appropriate and careful concerted multi-agency work have had a real impact on local crime problems. We want to work with police forces and police authorities across the country to build on existing initiatives into a national programme.

I hope in the time available – and I had to chose between coming and speaking relatively briefly and then going, or not coming at all – I have given you a sufficiently clear indication of how we intend to proceed:

This conference calls for the targeting of anti-social behaviour and an agenda for action. We have to do this together but I hope that you will agree that this Government in the short time that we have had to start on our work has started to play our part in setting that agenda. Thank you very much indeed.