'If people see clear penalties and swift enforcement, they'll start to comply'

And that is precisely what the measures in the antisocial behaviour white paper published earlier this month are intended to do. In its early years, this administration underestimated the difficulty of bringing about changes in behaviour and sometimes failed to recognise the difficulties of applying some of its initiatives on the ground – the gap between what seems a good idea to Whitehall policymakers and what works on a windswept deprived estate can be be a wide one – but in this interview, the home secretary acknowledges this, at least to a degree. He points out that new measures have not always been taken up on the front line either because staff do not know what changes have taken place or because there are still obstacles preventing their effective use. The white paper proposals are about learning from experience, he says.

In many other ways, though, these plans are archetypal New Labour, Blunkett being among its most vociferous exponents. This is all about rights and responsibilities – the two Rs at the centre of government philosophy. Those who transgress are not victims of capitalist exploitation, as some on the traditional left might have thought, but dysfunctional individuals who, Blunkett says, require "clear penalties and swift enforcement". These are people who will abuse their rights and, whenever they can, avoid their responsibilities. Only with a much slicker system can their behaviour be changed.

The plans are not all stick and no carrot but even those measures that might be described as positive reinforcement may seem punitive to the recipients – how else would you regard being given a chance to, in the home secretary's words, "redeem your behaviour, adjust and to repair the damage"?

Blunkett points the way forward with his vision of local Community Justice Centres – the manifestation of the commitment to tackle crime and the causes of crime, bringing together agencies in a building erected under the private finance initiative.

As for those in the housing sector and beyond who have argued that further penalties will just drive people further into poverty, he has little patience. All the criminal justice reforms are rooted in the idea that many of the victims of crime are among the poorest in the community and that those who pontificate along liberal lines do so without having to face the harsh reality of what it is like to live in an area where crime and antisocial behaviour are rife and race relations, already strained, are deteriorating still further as war continues in Iraq. Blunkett says he will listen to those who have direct experience, and with many of the objections coming from frontline staff, it will interesting to see if that promise is fulfilled.

Critics fear Blunkett has overestimated the impact of deterrence and that a seemingly punitive approach will simply alienate these families and youngsters even more. The ultimate sanction is prison but, with the highest jail population of all time, the government will not want to see many more people behind bars.

Ultimately, as Blunkett acknowledges, the success of any measures will depend on local implementation. In a sense the government is offering a menu of options; it will be up to local agencies which they use, and how often.

But interestingly, while the government's enthusiasm for carrots and sticks knows no bounds, Blunkett seems to have tracked back a little this time on the sanctions and incentives for the authorities. Targets, and lots of them, were once an obsession – Blunkett even offered to resign when he was education secretary if one target was not met, although fortunately for him he had moved on by the time it was not met. That may help to explain why he is now decidedly cool about targets, preferring minimum targets with maximum endeavour to change culture.

That, however, will not prevent these plans to control social behaviour from being subject to close scrutiny – it will be a key measure of the success or otherwise of the New Labour project, particularly as war makes many people more conscious of the ways they are different from their neighbours and less amenable to Blunkett's vision of working together for the common good.

Niall Dickson Home secretary, now that war is under way and British troops are deployed, you must be concerned that there will be rising tension in some communities where there is strong opposition to war.

David Blunkett There are two issues really. Firstly, insecurity, instability, fear require us to be robust in removing the causes of fear closest to us: disorder and destabilisation within our own community. We have to begin by removing fear and instability around people – better policing and creating a situation in which they feel safe in their home and on the street.

Secondly, we need to look at those issues that are common to all of us and bring down racism and discrimination by incorporating everyone, whatever faith and culture, in that endeavour. We need to demonstrate that what we're doing in bringing about security and stability in the world is an obvious continuation of that process. The two go hand in hand.

We can demonstrate to minority communities and host communities that we can remove their fears by all being together on the issue of vigilance. We have to ensure we are holding in common the desire to live peacefully in those neighbourhoods. If people get that message, they'll understand that there are not two sets of people in this country, those who are on our side and those who are not. We're all in this together.

ND But do you accept that Muslims in this country are almost 100% against the war, that they are feeling alienated and angry at what the government is doing and that they regard it as a war against the Islamic faith?

DB We have to stop that by demonstrating that the Iraqi regime has absolutely nothing to do with faith, far from it. In fact, the foreign minister of Iraq claims to be a Christian.

There are people who are disillusioned with our government. They have the right to be in a democracy but it crosses all sorts of faiths, social and economic groupings, age groups. Equally there are people of all faiths and backgrounds who are vehemently supportive of what we're doing.

ND There have been previous initiatives aimed at tackling antisocial behaviour, now you're planning a raft of new measures. Why should they be any more successful?

DB First, because the signals will be very clear. In other words, we are engaging the community. We are saying that this is not something that can be done from the centre, but it can be done effectively if those at the sharp end are prepared to cooperate.

Second the enforcement powers are simple, non-bureaucratic and easy to operate.

I accept there is still a problem of people knowing what those powers are. As I go round the country, I find that the police, housing officers and other staff often don't know what powers are available to them now, as well as what changes in administration have already taken place – but that's down to us. I think we may not yet have got that message across.

ND There have been criticisms, though.

For example, some have complained that antisocial behaviour orders have been both expensive and hard to implement.

DB If there's any obstacle in the way, people will run up against that obstacle, so you have to take out all those hurdles and ditches and that's what we've been doing – learning from the experience of the antisocial behaviour orders, slimming down the method of getting them, introducing the interim orders, making it possible to go to county court as well as magistrate's court.

One thing we have learned is that if, as with fixed-penalty notices, you can take out the prolonged court criminal justice process in the initial stages, you actually make it possible for the enforcement to take place.

I grew up on a deprived housing estate and I know that if people find out that their behaviour will not be tolerated, they modify it

Of course, people still have rights of appeal but where there is any opportunity for prevarication, for putting people off using the mechanisms, then I'm afraid it does happen.

ND Critics say imposing fines on people who are poor anyway just throws them into debt. Do you accept that it will make them poorer but may not make them any less antisocial?

DB No, because I grew up on a deprived housing estate and there's a better network of signals than using the internet. People find out what is useable, what is acceptable very quickly. If they learn rapidly that their behaviour will not be tolerated, they'll moderate their behaviour. That is the simple lesson not just here but across the world. If people see a framework of clear penalties and swift enforcement, they'll start to comply with acceptable behaviour. The opposite of this is where you behave in a totally antisocial, disorderly or intimidatory fashion, knowing that you will be rehoused, that you can keep your family together, that in the end someone will pick up the bill, because the housing benefit will be paid direct – all this takes away any personal responsibility or liability. Once you do that, people learn to play the system.

ND In the white paper you say you will consult on the idea of withdrawing housing benefit. It is a more tentative proposal than many of the others. How keen are you, personally, to go ahead with this?

DB We're very clear that we are going to carry the targeted approach to rogue landlords – those who have been buying up property, making it available only to benefit recipients and then getting benefit paid direct, cutting out any proper contractual arrangements or tenancy agreements, any kind of enforcement by themselves as the landlord and no redress from the public or the public purse. We're going ahead with that. All we need to do is ensure we've got the right mechanism with the local authorities.

On the individual withdrawal, it very much has to be the last resort. The other measures we're taking and the signals we're sending will avoid having to use the power of withdrawal except in extremis. It might be used where it would be inappropriate to use eviction, where the person is in work and can pay something, where they are receiving housing benefit and the withdrawal of part of that benefit would be a real sanction.

ND The key to all this is whether these sanctions actually change people's behaviour, whether deterrent really works.

DB Well, I don't want these things to be used often. I want them to form a clear cultural change. I want to get the signals and messages right, so the culture of playing the system and making other people's lives a misery is no longer seen as something that avoids retribution.

Often, you get half-a-dozen families on an estate and if you deal with two or three of them, the others start behaving. A signal goes out that that kind of behaviour won't be tolerated and peer group pressure, community pressure, can then take hold. I also believe that the young people in those families get the message and their behaviour changes. At the moment you get generational disadvantage leading to generational dysfunctionality and it's the dysfunctional families we want to deal with.

I want to accompany all of these enforcement measures with opportunities for them to redeem their behaviour to adjust and repair the damage. That is why we want to use Homemakers, as we used to call them when I was leader in Sheffield. These are individuals going in to rebuild the functionality or again in extremis providing a residential facility for the whole of the family to learn how to behave in a densely populated area. All of those things will run alongside the enforcement measures.

ND You mentioned the measures to make landlords face up to their responsibilities in this area – can you really change tenant behaviour by cracking down on them?

DB Yes. I think the better social landlords have demonstrated that tenancy agreements and the enforcement of them can make an enormous difference. What MPs have said to me, in their droves, is that there has become a new industry where people have spotted a lot of empty property, filled it with people on benefits, often people that are dysfunctional. The landlords know that there's no redress so they've just let their tenants get on with it. Often it is very cheap property where if it's trashed they can write it off, and obviously if they're receiving substantial rents from the public purse they can afford to do so.

ND The white paper talks about the idea of community courts. How might they work?

DB Well, I don't want to take away the normal rights that exist through the criminal justice system – that would only lead to those cases being overturned in higher courts. That wouldn't take us very much further.

In the short term, what I want to do is identify where we can have fast-track systems, perhaps with greater informality, but with much closer proximity to the areas concerned so you actually get the defendant to turn up. As it is, we have a major problem with not just lawyers playing the system but defendants not actually appearing. Second, it would make the criminal justice system feel, and be, closer to the community, which would restore greater confidence.

In the medium and longer term, we want to use the PFI and public-private partnerships to develop Community Justice Centres that will involve a whole range of services so the probation service, the youth offending teams can be there on the spot. By bringing the whole system closer together, we can take the next step along the road, making this much more about criminal justice and correction services working together.

ND Your colleague Malcolm Wicks accused some in the housing world of being elitist when they opposed the bill on withdrawing housing benefit from repeatedly antisocial tenants. Do you agree with him about that?

DB I said in my own statement that those who do not experience the worst of antisocial behaviour should not get in the way of those that want to do something about it and I think that is very much the same message.

If you're experiencing it and you're suffering it and you're deeply sympathetic to the person who's doing it to you and you'd like us to leave them alone, I'll happily accept your view. But if you don't know what we're talking about, and the people around you have never experienced it, I suggest you pause for a moment before condemning those of us who want to tackle it.

ND If you are really going to have an impact with all these measures, do you not need targets? Is that not the only way in which stretched resources will be deployed with so many other priorities demanding the attention of the authorities?

DB We've included, for the first time, antisocial behaviour in the national policing plan, we've engaged over the last year police chief constables in recognising that antisocial behaviour is often the prerequisite to much more severe criminality.

Just a few weeks ago Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, acknowledged that there had been a mistake about a decade ago when people disengaged with this. We can actually engage the police without having artificial targets that would be difficult to set and difficult to monitor. I think we've reached an era where minimal targets but maximum endeavour to change the culture must be uppermost in our minds. I've been a great advocate of that for some time.

ND But is it not inevitable that the police will concentrate on those areas where you have given them specific targets?

DB I think without a substantial reduction