Ideas and Manifestos from the General Election 2005

This paper explores the community safety ideas in the manifestos of the three political parties during the 2005 British General Election. Community Safety was generally included in manifestos under the heading of Crime and Disorder. As a key theme during the election Crime and Disorder generated much competition between the parties to outdo each other on being tough on the causes of crime.

Tony Blair wants to "bring back a proper sense of respect" which created a new language for community safety with anti-social behaviour very much at the heart of it. What was clear from manifestos was that Community Safety is as important as ever. But in amongst the hyperbole were many ideas that could become reality, some of these worthy of being part of continuing reform, others needing to be questioned about what real difference they would make to reality on the ground.

All three parties promote the increase in numbers of police, Community Support Officers or special constables and a reduction in paperwork. With there already being record numbers of police officers having more will have a decreasing amount of impact on crime and disorder - do we not already have enough? There was a clear argument to increase civilian numbers to reduce police time on paperwork so they can be patrolling. If these are freed up it is questionable if more police are really needed. The problem with Community Support Officers - and having more of them - is that they are disliked by the police, not understood by the community and lacking morale. So why not drop the scheme and enhance the wardens' programme with police given a management role and the wardens given bye-law powers with more imaginative use of by-laws?

The general promotion of the expansion of drug treatment places should not be at the expense of long-term quality treatment that sees real changes in peoples' lives. Where short term results are demanded this could mean treatment takes second place to sanctions as targets need to be met. This will lead to serious problems as sanctions don't work on drug users and their chaotic lives.

With the Labour Party manifesto Tony Blair put forward a three-prong law and order strategy: first, Labour's existing crime legislation to combat anti-social behaviour (ASB) and drugs; secondly, preventative work with children and young people such as with Sure Start; and thirdly, more police. There has been much good work, some controversial but not yet much to show for it.

There is an ever-increasing emphasis on punishment and control, exemplified by the emphasis on anti-social behaviour orders and fixed penalty fines. The flagship new legislation on guns and the message of "respect" to tackle anti-social behaviour may inadvertently raise the level of moral panic when the facts suggest otherwise. Are the social housing estates in need of enforcement or empowerment? "The language of 'yobs', 'crackdowns', and 'fighting back against crime' is about punitive measures but is not balanced by long-term prevention needed to create a fairer and safer society. So instead of demonstrating strength with tough new legislation there should be time for reasoned debate on what empowers communities. This is where wardens have a clear role.

The drive on ASB should mean it is more about tackling the causes of crime rather than simply finding new ways of issuing ASBOs. But there is no evidence to support this yet - more emphasis should be placed on preventative measures to give balance.

Neighbourhood patrolling is one of the stronger Labour initiatives which is right to develop - residents have been asking for this for years. It gives reassurance on the streets, the power of deterrence and responsiveness. The idea of local neighbourhood panels will rightfully empower the public new powers to force local authorities and police to take action against ASB.

The idea of allowing third party evidence of ASB to make it easier to take action against the perpetrators is a large risk in how it can lower quality of the evidence and tolerance to non-ASB, and in so doing raise the risk of bad decisions.

Fixed penalty notices are to be expanded to ASB. If it works for car parking enforcement so why not try it with ASB? The problem is that ASB is misunderstood and the emphasis is only two dimensional punishment without addressing the cause. Letting council wardens issue fixed penalty notices could backfire if used as a blunt instrument. Wardens are the eyes and ears of the community - the auntie and uncle to look after your children. They are not uniformed officers; they have a bond with their community which this power could break.

Alcohol disorder zones is another sensible and bold idea to promote safe drinking culture and pass the cost of disorder on to the original cause. Pubs and clubs in the zone areas that generate disorder can be made to pay towards the cost of dealing with the problems and cleaning up the area.

The Prolific and other Persistent Offenders Scheme is high on the agenda but still no funding means it cannot be given the attention the Government wants it to have.

This Government's obsession with targets reached an absurd milestone with the latest round of PSA targets. It is worrying that the emphasis is firmly on targets which makes it all the more difficult addressing the causes of crime and making a difference in the long term.

The Conservative Party is unsurprisingly promoting the tougher enforcement of ASBOs. Magistrates are not being strong enough about the problem of breaching of ASBOs - this undermines their reputation. What is a real issue is the misunderstanding and misuse of ASBOs by local authorities and police - the law should be tightened up to clear up the confusion and help the courts enforce them.

Parents of youths who persistently breach ASBOs may be stripped of their benefit payments and forced to leave their neighbourhoods - neither solution solves what is a valid problem and in fact may make it worse by reinforcing the cause of the problem: family breakdown.

The idea of young offenders losing the right to drive for a period of time (for anyone who does not yet hold one) would hit the offender of a serious enough crime hit them where it hurts and, though controversial, is novel. However, it would have repercussions for rehabilitation work.

The Tory party were unique in addressing architectural matters. It wants crime to be built out under a planning shake-up that would discourage the creation of crime-friendly housing estates. This is already happening but deserves more attention. The attention should be sorting out the crime-friendly estates we already have e.g. removing alley ways (currently patchy). Many houses now built on patches of land that have informal uses e.g. children's play areas or cut-throughs. Building on them tends to create ASB - more consultation needs to be done here to show sensitivity to the needs of the immediate surrounding area.

The idea of a ten fold increase in drug rehab places by giving "dealers and junkies" the opportunity to undergo a six-month rehabilitation programme - or face the prospect of jail is unrealistic in its numbers but the simple carrot and stick approach that is necessary to be workable. The focus should not be on numbers but on real long-term results that see individuals leading normal lives - this involves ridding whole communities of visible drugs chaos that enable the individual user to return to it and not relapse. Concentrate on improving what we do rather than creating more places.

All parties promote more democracy to bring the police closer to communities. Elected local police bodies are a good idea to empower local communities. A new kind of local police commissioner would be appointed to increase police autonomy and accountability and respond to the priorities of local communities. "It will allow us to stop the perennial target-setting [for police] by government."

Liberal Democrats want ABCs promoted as cost-effective way of tackling ASB. The jury is still out on this non-binding contract which has only one real use as evidence for ASBOs. It needs strengthening before youths will take it seriously.

It would introduce Community Justice Panels made up of local people. This is real empowerment rather than shallow democratic measures.

Liberal Democrats focus on the soft rather than hard measures for anti-social behaviour. Whilst community service for ASB should be hugely expanded as a more effective alternative before prison - it would work is the perpetrator really does clean up their damage - this will reduce the power of ASBs.

It seeks to tackle "yob culture" by offering young people more opportunities e.g. apprenticeships and programmes outside school hours. This is already happening and ignores the importance of barriers and discipline.

Finally, it wants to reform drug use policy to free time and resources to tackle major traffikers. It makes good sense to squeeze the problem at the source in this country.