Ruth, almost spot on. Tony Blair built upon the work of Neil Kinnock and John Smith in repositioning the ‘New’ Labour Party, certainly on crime and on social issues. One of the lasting legacies of Labour under Tony Blair will be the anti-social behaviour legislation introduced since 1997, although personally I can’t abide Blair as a leader. As Shadow Home Secretary and a Barrister by profession, it was only to be expected that Tony Blair would bring about change given that as Shadow Home Secretary, Tony Blair made famous his pledge that Labour would be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, a phrase hijacked by many since. The gaping hole in the current anti-social behaviour legislation, which needs to be addressed, is that which can effectively be used against freeholders and leaseholders who often seem to get away with anti-social behaviour, which simply wouldn’t be tolerated, from tenants. Generally from what I have experienced of Neighbourhood Wardens, in many areas of London, I am not convinced as to their merits. They are not the universal panacea to the problems associated with anti-social behaviour and often lack the ‘real’ powers needed to address the problems they are expected to deal with, often due in large part to residents’ expectations being set far too high – by local authorities and housing providers. A neighbourhood warden in a van who has been called out to deal with a group of say 10 rowdy individuals on an estate, is not going to be able to effectively tackle the problem unassisted. Granted that they can and do play a useful role, but against a cost to benefit analysis, I doubt that many local authorities would provide Neighbourhood Wardens without the benefit of hefty government subsidies. How often have we seen government subsidies used to provide services such as concierges and Neighbourhood Wardens, only for the services to be withdrawn at the end of the subsidy period? Dare I say that as is probable in the Haverfield Estate case, the most effective way to tackle anti-social behaviour is by involving the community, empowering them to bring about change with the support of their housing provider, the police and other agencies. I’ve sat through two consultations this week, seen glossy presentations and been talked through plans put forward by social landlords and their architects. When they are asked about the density of their proposed schemes and the sustainability of the area as a whole, blank faces suddenly replace the smiling, gleaming faces of the proposers of such schemes. Its all well and good for the local authority to have allocation rights as a pay off but what we need to do is to ensure that the homes we build, meets or exceeds the expectations of the prospective occupiers and their neighbours. By way of example, planning to build six 4 bedroom units, three 3 bedroom units and 1 one bedroom wheelchair unit on a piece of land currently used to house six prefabricated garages, with no parking provision being outlined in the plans and with no play facilities planned for the children likely to live in these units is asking for trouble. That trouble is likely to mean storing up anti-social behaviour for the future because residents are being packed into an area, which in my opinion is far too small to adequately accommodate them. You’d think that in this day and age society would be able to recognise that the higher the density, the greater the potential problems. Then again, maybe we haven’t learnt from our past mistakes. Finally, on youth provision, I agree 100% with you. We need to spend more on our youth if we are to give our youth a stake in society.
Gareth Evans ● 7287d