Downing Street Says

Asked what would happen next with regards to the "Respect" agenda, the PMOS summarised what the basic approach was. Local authorities told us that for each local authority area in England and Wales, approximately fifty families in each area caused a large percentage of problems. Therefore, what that suggested, and what experience suggested was that what might seem in themselves small measures, could have a big effect in helping local neighbourhoods. What was critical was to give individuals, neighbourhoods and communities the confidence and the hope that they could take action, or help bring about action, that would eliminate the problems that came from that disproportionately small number of people.

Why did we think this approach worked? We had now seen the nearly 6,500 ASBOs issued from what was admittedly a slow start, so they had reached a critical mass where people recognised that they did have an impact. We had seen 500 crack houses close, 800 dispersal orders issued, over 170,000 penalty orders given, and 13,000 Acceptable Behaviour contracts agreed. All that was practical experience on which these new proposals were based. What happened now was that there would be a task force unit in the Home Office which, among other things, would help mentor projects up and down the country, and £25 million had been allocated for that. What would also happen was an extension of parenting orders, so as schools and local authorities could apply those, as well as the police.

We would also see the establishment of the Parenting Academy, and we would see the consultation process on the proposal to close houses which were a persistent cause of problems. We had already seen that in practice in Scotland where ten houses had been closed. We would also see consultation on docking housing benefit if families or parents refused help when dealing with problem issues. There would also be a volunteering service. The PMOS said there were a wide range of new powers and measures that would be taken as a result.

Asked if it was the Prime Minister’s belief that if certain things were made illegal first, society’s attitudes would change as a result, the PMOS replied that first of all, the Prime Minister’s belief was that as he set out in his speech, people needed to clearly identify what the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour were. The Prime Minister was not harking back to a nostalgic glow of the past, but rather, trying to identify and define what the parameters were now.

These measures would then be taken, and regardless of how small they might appear, they would be built up incrementally, and by showing communities that by taking action of a relatively small kind, the nature of the neighbourhood could be changed. The PMOS said that a small number of kids could wreak a whole street, but if action could be shown to be taken, and that behaviour was stopped, then it would have a good effect. So, yes, it was about change in the culture, but it was done not by sweeping legislation, but rather by a series of incremental steps. As the PMOS said yesterday, some of those incremental steps would require legislation that would be attached to other parts of legislation going through the House. Others would be practical measures.

There was evidence that changing attitudes was already happening. If people looked at the polling data, in areas where ASBOs had been used, there was evidence that fear of disturbance and disorder were going down. Other figures showed that the proportion of people who thought that neighbourhoods were getting noisier had gone down in the past three years from one in five to one in six. The trend was going in the right way, and it was all about establishing the dynamic in the right way, rather than the wrong way.

Put that the subject of docking of housing benefit had been broached before, but was not implemented, and was there a greater acceptance now of similar measures, the PMOS replied that what people needed to address was the substance. First of all, it was not a case of docking housing benefit from vast numbers of people. If people looked at the figures again, it was fifty problem families in each local area, rather than vast numbers. Secondly, it was about giving people a choice; they could choose to accept help and guidance which was in their interest and their children’s interest, or they could refuse. If they refused, there should be a penalty for that refusal. That was the choice. Therefore, we did think that people were moving away from the big headline to the reality, and if people looked at the reality, it made sense.

Asked what was actually new in the "Respect" plan, the PMOS said that the journalist might regret asking the question! The "Respect" plan would:

The PMOS said that alongside those mentioned, it would give neighbourhoods the ability to trigger a review by local authorities of whether sufficient action was being taken. That was why it involved all the individual departments, and was also why a very co-ordinated approach.

Asked if the Prime Minister expected the people of Scotland to benefit from the "Respect" plan, the PMOS replied that it terms of Scotland, it was already leading the way with regards to closing houses. In the last three months, the PMOS thought ten houses had been closed. Already, Scotland was in the vanguard of this, and devolution in Scotland would apply in terms of other matters.

Asked what from the list that the PMOS read out would apply to Scotland, the PMOS said he would respect devolution and the ability of Scotland to make its own decisions. Equally, as the Prime Minister believed, that the "Respect" was an issue that was not limited to England and Wales.

Put to the PMOS that Michael Howard had said that he wanted "thugs" to be frightened of the police, and was this something that the Prime Minister sympathised with, the PMOS said that what young thugs needed to realise was that it was not just the police that they needed to be aware of who would take action against them, as it was also communities, neighbourhoods and local authorities. Equally, however, if they did take the right action, then they could be helped to make life better for themselves as well as their communities. This was a combination of: increase of punishments, giving guidance to people and increasing help. The PMOS said it was a comprehensive approach in that sense.

2 Comments »

The problem with the Standard powers, although I think it\x92s a great idea in princable, it just isn\x92t a standard.

Chief Constables/commissioners will still decide what powers the PCSO\x92s get, it\x92s just that there will be a basic standard set they start with.

There will still be confusion as many forces will differ with the powers they designate to their PCSO\x92s, so there will still be confusion in the publics eyes.

What they need to is issue ALL the powers available to PCSO\x92s, issue Cuffs and then you have a great weapon in tackling ASB and disorder.

Simple.
Comment by PCSO — 13 Nov 2006 on 7:03 pm | Link
i love yout activities like camping and meeting new friends,:,*
Comment by Accent Chair — 14 Oct 2010 on 7:05 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Respect

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries