Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I will concentrate on the topic of anti-social behaviour orders. The Labour Party supports their introduction and that of good behaviour contracts. The idea is modelled on legislation in place in the UK for a number of years. As far as I know, the anti-social behaviour order was first introduced there in 1998. The UK system includes anti-social behaviour contracts, which are similar to good behaviour contracts.

While anti-social behaviour orders have attracted a great deal of negative comment in the UK, a great deal of positive comment has also been made. As a local councillor in south Dublin, my father, along with some of his colleagues and local authority officials, recently visited Manchester where they spoke to local authority members and officials who were extremely enthusiastic about their experience of anti-social behaviour orders.

While researching this matter, I discovered the Home Office conducted a review of the system in 2002. While it may have been biased, the feedback it reported was generally positive. However, teething problems occurred and issues were raised which needed to be addressed. They included the importance of partnership and a multi-agency approach to the implementation of anti-social behaviour orders and anti-social behaviour contracts. Other teething problems included delays in obtaining anti-social behaviour orders in court, and the high expectations of residents being dashed if they did not receive the outcomes for which they had hoped.

Anti-social behaviour orders were introduced in the UK through anti-social behaviour legislation. We should have dealt with it through a separate anti-social behaviour Bill which would have been more comprehensive. Not only should NGOs and bodies such as the Human Rights Commission and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have been consulted, local authorities and local communities which experience these problems should also have been involved.

It is possible that local authorities deal with anti-social behaviour more than the Garda Síochána does. In terms of how crime is dealt with, anti-social behaviour is a major hidden area. If one closely examined the issue, one might see that local authorities must often come up with solutions alone or in partnership with the Garda Síochána and must, therefore, have expertise in this area. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will answer the question of whether consultation with local authorities took place before the provisions of the Bill were drawn up. If it did not, it should have. A more comprehensive definition of anti-social behaviour could have been drafted if a consultation process had taken place.

We need better statistics on anti-social behaviour. The Central Statistics Office surveys victims of crime and we have statistics from that. However, a great deal of crime involving anti-social behaviour, such as damage to property, goes unreported. At present, because people are not caught for such crime and nothing is done about it, many people feel it is pointless to report it.

I recently had an experience of anti-social behaviour. My garden wall was demolished when a stolen car was driven into it at four o'clock one morning. I was aware of anti-social behaviour and had previously raised the issue in the House, but this brought home to me that victims must pay for the damage. The person has not yet been caught but even if he is, the wall has already been replaced, which was expensive.

The incident also brought home to me the dangers involved. My immediate response was to see whether anyone was injured. The man driving the car quickly scarpered and got into another car against which he was obviously racing. It turned out the car had been stolen. If it had happened during the day when someone was in the garden or walking by, he or she could have been killed. The person involved was obviously reckless about his own safety, the safety of others and the damage he did.

The damage could have been a lot more serious because the car clipped the gas connector outside our garden. Serious harm could have been done to me and my family.

Anti-social behaviour is becoming more prevalent and crime statistics do not present a good picture of what is involved or of its extent. People are victims of anti-social behaviour much more now than in the past and it is causing fear and insecurity. I have sometimes seen reports in the local papers describing stolen cars crashing in certain estates. Nothing is done about it on time and the cars are set on fire and cause damage to the estates. People are living in fear because of this and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

The idea of the anti-social behaviour order is good but we must proceed cautiously and review the process along the way. If possible, the orders should be introduced on a pilot basis because of people's fears and legitimate criticisms of the anti-social behaviour order system that exists in the United Kingdom.

I understand — I am open to correction — that the Garda will have to carry out the procedures concerning the orders. In the United Kingdom, however, the burden is spread between local authorities and the police force. Given the pressures on the Garda and the fact that the system is new to the force, will the orders come on stream here in a substantial way? I understand there is a multi-agency approach to anti-social behaviour contracts in the United Kingdom and that there are teams whose job it is to help people comply with them. This is needed in Ireland.

In a recent discussion on youth justice, I mentioned that Dr. Ursula Kilkelly of UCC carried out a study entitled The Children's Court: A Children's Rights Audit, one of the findings of which states, "It is apparent from this research that the lack of bail support is undermining young people's compliance with bail conditions and failing to help them avoid offending while on bail". Dr. Kilkelly calls for "bail support programmes" and a similar support-based approach needs to be adopted in respect of good behaviour contracts. The supports need to be provided on a multi-agency basis. In restorative justice schemes, such as that introduced in Nenagh, many supports are provided to ensure the individuals concerned comply with the relevant agreement as part of the reparation process.

Anti-social behaviour can have many elements, including family background and the involvement of friends, and therefore supports should be introduced. This is also an issue in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament initiated a consultation process on this issue in 2003 and found that many factors influence anti-social behaviour, including family background, poverty, inequality and poor attendance and performance at school. Consequently, we require not only anti-social behaviour orders to deal with the perpetrators but we also need to tackle the causes of their anti-social behaviour. This may require a multi-agency approach. The issue of family support arises in this regard, particularly in the case of children.

The Scottish Parliament considered parenting orders. In England and Wales, where parenting orders are issued, only 10% of the orders are breached. Parents have a major role to play and much to answer for in respect of their children's anti-social behaviour, and there is therefore a need to address the behaviour of parents. In so doing, supports are required. The Scottish Parliament considered the idea that the issuing of parenting orders should involve the provision of supports for parents. For example, they might require counselling.

Children in my community are involved in anti-social behaviour and the local council sometimes threatens to evict their families as a consequence. In such cases, although the children's behaviour is inexcusable, the families can have terrible problems. I know of children who are orphans because both their parents died as a result of long-term drug addiction. These children do not necessarily get the correct supports from the community, councils and education sector and these supports must therefore be provided. Individuals associated with anti-social behaviour often have many problems, including health problems and drug addiction. Sometimes those who are threatened with eviction are not necessarily those engaging in anti-social behaviour and are not necessarily able to cope with a child who is engaging in it. This needs to be addressed.

An anti-social behaviour Bill should have been introduced to deal with this issue more comprehensively. Perhaps this could be achieved through amending legislation in the future. Local authorities need to be much more involved, as in the United Kingdom where many of the local authorities have set up anti-social behaviour units. Local authorities are often at fault in cases of anti-social behaviour and need to examine their role. For example, if an area is left to fall into decline, the local community can disintegrate, thereby increasing the incidence of anti-social behaviour. All these issues need to be addressed.

A community policing approach to law enforcement is required, in addition to a problem solving approach that involves local communities determining the causes of crime and anti-social behaviour with a view to preventing them. It is not just a question of enforcing the law in the case of those who do commit crimes and engage in anti-social behaviour.