Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Graham P Jones and Martin Whitfield

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Graham P. Jones]

I was using it as an example of why a police and crime commissioner would retain reserves. The hon. Gentleman has just proved the point that I have been making: the police and crime commissioner in Lancashire, Clive Grunshaw, does a wonderful job by making sure that there are reserves so that, as the hon. Gentleman says, Blackpool and the Conservative MP there can get a brand new shiny police station to replace the crumbling one. That is what I call fiscal responsibility. The Minister should think about that when she gets to her feet and makes these points—well, she did not actually make any point in response to my point about the police station; she was saved by one of her Back Benchers, to be fair. This is about prudence. The Minister talks about people, but perhaps she should have listened to the points I made earlier about this being about staff, people, communities and neighbourhoods.

To return to the point that I was making, we have lost 800 staff—this is not just about the savings. By the way, I say to the Minister that there is a difference between capital and revenue—another obvious point. However, cutting 800 staff means that antisocial behaviour will increase. A total of 450 staff have been removed from the back office, which has an impact, and neighbourhood policing units have basically collapsed; they no longer exist. We have gone back to 1990s response policing, with police increasingly driving around areas in their panda cars. I have been out with the police at night on several shifts and seen how policing has become a blue light operation. That is what Lancashire constabulary has been reduced to. When there is serious knife crime in an area or some big incident happens, the police cannot deal with antisocial behaviour. We cannot have a progressive solution if we strip out neighbourhood policing.

I want to touch on one other point, which relates to the coalition Government. I sometimes get sick and fed up with Liberal politicians saying that we should not have CCTV cameras. They talk all this nonsense about catching criminals. I ask Ministers to please listen to constituents and residents and to be on their side—do not be on the side of those Liberals. I say gently to the Minister that our constituents and residents suffer and would like to see CCTV cameras working; they do not see it as a problem.

I have asked for the precept to be raised, and I say that quite openly. The public have been asked about that, and 78% of those surveyed support that move. I like to say that I am in touch with the people, but in this particular instance I obviously am. The public want to see more police on the beat. They want to see our police tackling antisocial behaviour.

The cuts have really affected our areas of Hyndburn and Haslingden. We have no presence, apart from a blue light presence, on the streets. I know that sometimes the chief constable does not want to send out that message, and he may well have something to say in my ear. I say back to him, “I’m sorry Andy, but unfortunately, that is what is happening.” There are no PCSOs or beat constables out on the street any more. Our neighbourhood policing teams have been seconded to other duties, causing the neighbourhood policing units to collapse in Lancashire. It is simply not fair.

In the past few weeks, a vigilante group has moved in. This is where we end up. Antisocial behaviour is exceedingly aggravating to so many people. The Accrington vigilante group is called, I think, Hyndburn Watch. It has its own uniform and various other semi-official regalia, and it is out patrolling the streets at night. Is this what we have come to? We cannot deal with antisocial behaviour and we cannot protect the public, so people have to protect themselves and they have to pay for the privilege of having a non-existent service through their taxes. I am deeply concerned that these people are putting themselves in danger. It is not the right approach.

These nine years of police cuts have affected Lancashire. I know that there are Members on the Conservative Benches who privately, and occasionally publicly, agree with that and who do not agree with their own Government on the scale of the cuts that have hit our communities. Antisocial behaviour continues to worry me, and it worries more and more people around this country.

The Office for National Statistics has published information showing that, between October 2017 and September 2018, there was a staggering 13% increase in people experiencing or witnessing antisocial behaviour. The links with further austerity and cuts are clear when the figures are broken down into categories. There was a 28% rise in the number of people experiencing or witnessing groups hanging around on the streets.

I want local authorities to find a progressive solution to this, but what have we got? Youth clubs are closing in my area—I think we have consolidated five clubs into one. There is no progressive offer for people. They are roaming around the streets saying that they have nowhere to go, and in truth now they have nowhere to go. It is very difficult for them. We should be trying to find progressive answers for the vast majority who really want to abide by the law. Perhaps on a bad day, or on a few bad days, they and their mates get carried away and disrupt other people’s lives, but they are not intrinsically bad people.

I will come shortly to those who are the worst offenders and how we should deal with them, but we must have a progressive solution. It is worrying that the crime statistics are up, because I have to say—the coroner also says this—that there has been a massive increase of drugs in Hyndburn and Haslingden from county lines. The streets are awash with cocaine, and young people are getting involved through county lines. People can get cocaine anywhere at its purest level; never has it been available on the same scale as now. I ask for police sniffer dogs to go in, but there is a lack of policing; the police say they are unable to do that to try to resolve some of these issues. But young people involved in antisocial behaviour are slipping into a life of crime, so we need to be very concerned about the worst antisocial behaviour because of how that will manifest itself further on.

In all of this we need to go back to some basic principles. When we were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime we had the right policies. We need to get back to being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime; we have never controlled antisocial behaviour more than when we had that policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, the architects of that policy should be congratulated, because it was a breakthrough, but instead we have seen a roll-back in the last few years.

As has been said, a reformed ASBO needs to be reintroduced; I do not want to see people go to prison, so that is where the reform needs to be. Local authorities and police should be able to impose ASBOs where necessary on some of these individuals—the worst elements. We need to go back to what matters and listen to people; we need to have a community-centred approach to tackling this issue.

As the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, we need to look at the criminal justice system. For the worst offenders—not the majority, but those who repeat antisocial behaviour—we need to look at the criminal justice system. Community payback does not particularly work in some instances for repeat offences, and prison does not work, so we need to find something in the middle that does not send offenders back to hang around with their mates again and commit more antisocial behaviour. We need to look at other aspects of the criminal justice system so that we have a system that is progressive, that trains people, and that gets them out of this behaviour, but that also sanctions those who want to carry on. It must be punitive, but with some progressive or educational elements.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes and amendments that need to happen in the justice system are part of a very complex solution, and that no one golden bullet is going to solve all problems?

[Graham P. Jones]

I agree with that. As I have said, we should always start with the progressive answer, but for those who are regressive and refuse to behave we need to look at a reformed and tougher criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

I cannot better my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, the only reason why I chose to raise the issue of freehold premises is that it is rarely mentioned. Within my constituency, there have been challenges for people who have admitted problems and subsequently found great difficulty in selling their houses, but that in no way downplays the antisocial behaviour, and the pain, suffering, mental health anguish and challenges, faced by families in rented and leasehold accommodation.

As we have heard, groups can also choose to behave antisocially, and there is one aspect of that which needs to be addressed, because it might be the key to solving the problem. Let me describe some examples from where I live in Prestonpans in my constituency of East Lothian, which is of course in Scotland, where these matters are devolved. There have been great challenges involving our early teenagers who hang around in groups. I know a significant number of the individuals involved, having had the privilege of teaching them at primary school. They are not bad people, but sometimes when they group together, a group mentality takes over, with actions and behaviours becoming acceptable to the group that, in all honesty, its members would never, ever contemplate doing as individuals. Much work needs to be done to address this group mentality, and to aid and abet some of the very best work that is going on to defeat antisocial behaviour.

Let me raise another example from my community. A new playpark was put up predominantly for children under 10, and particularly those of pre-school age. There was a big discussion about how to stop the equipment being damaged, and that was achieved by bringing older brothers and sisters into the park to explain why the equipment was so important to their younger brothers or sisters. Suddenly feeling an identity among the community that was going to use the facilities empowered the older children to look after it. A significant number of those children and young people said to other young people, “Don’t damage the park. It’s for my little brother and sister.”

Antisocial behaviour is occasioned, in the main, by people who become dissociated from others in their communities, be they their neighbour who is playing the television too loud, a group that has nothing to do because of the closure of after-school clubs, or groups of vigilantes who have lost faith in the community, in society and in their politicians—the people they have elected to govern them to look after them and solve problems. There are no simple answers. I could stand here and rail against austerity, because withdrawing assets and funding is a huge problem and it has caused this isolation to increase and become magnified. Responsible leaders and a responsible Government need to admit that that withdrawal has gone too far. We need to re-empower our communities and our society, and that will cost money. Empowerment should come through giving local authorities more devolved power and responsibility so that they, in turn, can devolve that back into communities, with people again feeling connected to what happens around them. They will then not have to phone their councillor after midnight and say, “Come and speak to these 20 people,” but may instead be able to speak to the person in question and say, “Look, you can’t really have a party and invite all these people.” The connection between people will be such that antisocial behaviour reduces.

[Graham P. Jones]

Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that one of the this Government’s failures is the number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—that we have, with the figure running between 6% and 10% across every county and area? Where are these young people? What are they doing? Why are they not in education and training? [Interruption.]

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That is true, regardless of any dispute of those statistics that I feel may be coming. If someone becomes dissociated, and disconnected from their education and from their family and friends—for whatever reason—why should they buy into the society that they find themselves in? If their rented housing is inadequate—if they have water coming down the wall—and they have a landlord who just does not care, why should they buy into society and what their neighbour needs?

When we look at young children’s behaviour and sense of responsibility at school, we see that people innately care about each other. They lose that feeling because of the experiences that they face in life. One of our responsibilities as leaders is to ensure that the funds, assets, skills and strategies are in place so that people do not lose that in the first place, and so that if they are at risk of losing it, there is support to guide them back, such as after-school clubs and mentoring. Then they will understand their responsibilities, from something as simple as not dropping litter all the way through to not being part of a vigilante gang that feels that it is its right to foster justice in a community.

I am reminded of Orlando’s great phrase in “As You Like It”:

“I do desire we may be better strangers.”

One of the problems that we have found in our communities is that, for a whole lot of reasons, it is becoming much easier to become a better stranger than to become a better friend. There are no simple answers, but I have respect for a Government who face up to trying to solve these problems. I think that there individuals, answers and strategies out there that can make our constituents’ lives, families, schools and communities better. In that way, we will drive down antisocial behaviour—not excusing bad behaviour, but showing why it is not acceptable in our society.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Debate between Graham P Jones and Martin Whitfield

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate; it is a privilege to follow the previous speech. I want to put on record my appreciation for the comments made earlier about the House’s security services and the police in our constituencies who do an excellent and often difficult job in ensuring that candidates and, probably more importantly, their staff are safe.

Democracy and society demand that intimidation and abuse have no part in the process. Coupled with individual responsibility, it is well beyond time that social media platforms look to their responsibilities. The growing use of social media is well documented, as is the effect of its use as a tool of intimidation and abuse. Research into why it is used as a tool of intimidation is increasing. A Demos report from May 2017 states:

“What is clear though, is that the anonymous and ‘safe distance’ nature of social media platforms allows such abuse to be handed out far less respectfully than it would usually be if delivered face-to-face.”

That highlights the conflict between the platform and the democratic and societal function we require of it, and indeed what social media platforms offer.

It is the removed nature of social media that creates an environment that is so conducive to abuse and intimidation —it is made so easy. In their November 2016 report, Lowry and Zhang said:

“Heavy social media use combined with anonymity facilitates the social learning process of cyber bullying in social media in a way that fosters cyber bullying.”

In other words, the very tool of intimidation and bullying facilitates and promotes the learning of that bullying. The addictive nature of such communication, which is so important to society, is now being corrupted as an addictive tool of abuse.

If anonymity were removed, an individual or group would need to think, “I will be held to account for what I am about to say.” The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) was kind enough to allow me to make a short intervention in the 12 July Westminster Hall debate on abuse in UK elections, which allowed me to raise questions about a code of conduct and anonymous social media accounts. Within hours of that debate I—and, I expect, the hon. Gentleman—received social media abuse pointing to not just the stupidity of my idea, but my stupidity for raising it. I will take this opportunity to answer those people.

I agree that the anonymity of a dissident’s public-facing social media account is essential. However, I do not accept a user’s anonymity to the facilitator of their account. It is unacceptable for someone to intimidate and abuse an individual for whatever reason. Disagree and argue about the idea, but not about the individual characteristics of the advocate. Platforms should have a responsibility to react much quicker to such comments.

I fully accept that my experience after that debate is but a mere toe in the water compared with the vile abuse received by other right hon. and hon. Members, especially women. It must also be borne in mind that the intimidation and abuse of those who unsuccessfully stand for elected office, and of those who offer assistance—both paid and as volunteers—will surely make people question their future participation.

I raise that example because of the damage any such personalised abuse and intimidation does to the younger generation who watch on. As a teacher, I know the damage that social media abuse does to our young people when that abuse is started and spread by other young people. When such abuse is highlighted, society rightly points to it and says how wrong it is. When children share inappropriate photographs with each other, we highlight the damage to the victim, the danger and the criminality, but we also seek to educate and to point out why such sharing is wrong.

But the generation that follows us witnesses our actions, our behaviour and our choices, and those actions, behaviours and choices have as great an impact on their behaviour and choices as any face-to-face discussion after the event. Our younger generation—our future politicians, activists and leaders—witnessed appalling behaviour by adults during the general election. I speak beyond those who are a member of a political party, and beyond the staff and friends of independent candidates. I speak of the responsibility of those who affiliate, sympathise or associate with candidates, or who just use a candidate’s name. There is a duty to act respectfully and responsibly.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said in the Westminster Hall debate:

“We owe it to our democracy to make clear that intimidation and abuse have no part in our society, not only for candidates who stood at the recent general election but for future generations of men and women who are considering entering public life and standing for election.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 168-69WH.]

I completely agree with those sentiments. Our future generations demand of us more respect for each other.

In summing up, I wish to make reference to principles for the protection and promotion of human rights. This has been quoted frequently before, but it can stand another quote:

“Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators...ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with the effective remedies...and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations”.

Perhaps it is time for those who seek to act like states—the great social media platforms—to look to their responsibility not merely as a tool, but as a publisher and a major participant and facilitator of the modern-day social demos. We, as adults, need to look to the responsibility we have to future generations not only to take no part in intimidation and abuse, but not to stay silent when that occurs. Now is the time to end online tribalism—

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and some powerful points. When these debates occur online, there needs to be some clarity, as there is a difference between free speech and abuse. The point he is alluding to is that abuse is often dressed up as free speech, but when there is such an intervention, we have to say that abuse is not free speech.