Crime and punishment

The irony of the minister for law and order becoming embroiled in a "interesting and lively discussion" with angry tenants when publicising guidance on anti-social behaviour orders was not lost.

The tenants were arguing that their interests would be better served by improved community facilities rather than anti-social behaviour orders.

Straw's answer was that people who intimidate old ladies should be made to answer for it, irrespective of the amenities available.

But the incident also encapsulated the government's problem's in tackling crime and nuisance issues on deprived estates.

Most people agree that both the "soft" approach - community facilities, support, regeneration and so on - and the "tough" approach such as a crackdown on crime have a place.

The question is, where should the emphasis be?

Right now, the accent is firmly on the "tough" approach.

Launching the anti-social behaviour guidance, Straw himself used the sort of apocalyptic language which wouldn't look out of place in Robocop or Deathwish film.

He declared: "For far too long the criminal justice system has appeared incapable of enforcing decent standards of public behaviour by children and adults alike. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue."

Certainly there is no lack of support for a crackdown.

The two main political parties vie with each other for the mantle of the "party of law and order", and councils regularly publicise their strict policies.

Last year's Crime and Disorder Act, of which anti-social behaviour orders are only the latest chapter, will see the development of local crime strategies involving both councils and the police.

And just last week, housing minister Hilary Armstrong announced a £70m national plan to install CCTV systems on estates with a view to cutting crime.

Meanwhile, in a report which came out at the same time, the Audit Commission argued for a higher police profile on estates.

And this week, the Housing Corporation is announcing plans for "starter tenancies", billed as "as major factor in convincing new and existing tenants that anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated and has consequences for those who misbehave".

Gerard Murden, business manager at Liverpool council's housing department is also an executive member of the Social Landlord Crime and Nuisance Group.

He is currently building links between social landlords and Merseyside police, and confidently expects to obtain his first anti-social behaviour order in the first few weeks of April.

"It often starts off with localised nuisance - young gangs getting together and doing some basic vandalism and aggravation of the neighbourhood. This creates a climate of fear which can be used by criminals who move in, bringing drug dealing, car crime, burglary, and stolen goods," he says.

But now, with the advent of anti-social behaviour orders and service agreements between the police and the council, Murden maintains things will be different.

"The police will provide us evidence which we need to take civil action and we will provide them evidence to take criminal action. So the door has been closed on individuals who thought they could play one agency against the other," he says.

Many tenants would back such sentiments. After all they are the ones that have to live there and put up with the problems caused by the disruptive minority Murden talks about.

But not all of them. Alf Chandler, chairman of Tenants and Residents Organisation of England is a council tenant in Hounslow.

According to Chandler, funding, employment, and community facilities deserve more attention than anti-social behaviour orders.

He says: "There is no point in closing all the youth clubs and then complaining there is crime on the streets - because they have got nowhere to go."

Mediation projects bringing together offenders and victims, can often be the way to build community relationships and bridges between the generations, he maintains.

Homelessness charity Shelter also has its doubts about the wisdom of the "tough" approach.

Last year, in its report Access Denied, the charity warned that many councils could be contributing to social exclusion by operating housing exclusion polices designed to combat anti-social behaviour.

The report warned that many people were being excluded from waiting lists on "subjective judgements and unproven allegations" and for far more trivial offences than anti-social behaviour - such as non-payment of rent.

Shelter head of policy Nicola Bacon says: "What you have on the back of a policy thrust which is about anti-social behaviour is a lot of people being denied access to social housing for completely different issues - like rent arrears."

"One of the things we are trying to get across is that we know there are real problems in some cases, and with some individuals, and we are not denying that that is the case. But you have to think about appropriate responses."

"And whilst the hard-line responses are appropriate in a few cases, in a lot of others they really should be seen as a last resort. Agencies should first of all go through low level mediation, support before they go for something harder," she says.

Ultimately, striking a balance between "hard" and "soft" policies in such a sensitive area will always be a near-impossible task.

The government of course maintains that its record on the helping hand - including its multifarious New Deals, the Single Regeneration Budget, and capital receipts - is second to none.

But back in Liverpool, Gerard Murden warns against putting the cart of "soft" policies before the horse of anti-social behaviour orders.

"Resources have been wasted in areas where we have gone into to assist and we've tried to create jobs and employment but crime and disorder have taken those options away," he says.

"The reality is, is that you can't start on that process of regeneration unless you first get a climate of trust and people living in quiet enjoyment. Once you have established that, then you can begin to improve things," he says.