ONE of the main planks of the Government's attempts to be seen to be tough on crime is the anti-social behaviour order.

As we report on our front page, the first order in the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency was issued yesterday. It is only the fourth in County Durham since the order was introduced in May 1999 and the first on a juvenile - low numbers which show how time-consuming and complicated these orders are to impose.

The North-East's experience of the orders is very mixed. The first was imposed upon 45-year-old Ashley Jones, of Newcastle, last December. As he had previously been arrested about 350 times, it was no surprise when he broke the order within a month and was jailed for six months.

Durham's first experience of the orders ended the same way. John Newman, 35, of New Brancepeth, who had been arrested 212 times, became the subject in June because he repeatedly made 999 calls when drunk. Within weeks, he had been arrested for the 213rd and 214th times and was jailed for two months. He was arrested for the 215th time within hours of his release for again being drunk.

On Teesside, two 12 and 14-year-old brothers are currently waiting to hear their fate after they broke their orders imposed in May.

It is clear, therefore, that the orders are little deterrent to persistent nuisances. They have to be used in conjunction with other criminal weapons and their main purpose appears to be the provision of another book to throw at an offender when he commits yet another misdemeanour.

However, the orders are not complete failures. The handful issued in Stockton, for instance, have insisted that the young offenders' parents (often, in fact, parent) must attend parenting classes - probably the first advice in the tricky art of child-rearing that they have received.

The other positive aspect of the orders is that they are relevant to the communities which have had their lives blighted by the anti-social behaviour of the few. Gerard Tompkinson, Cleveland Police's solicitor, told the court which imposed the orders on the brothers: "These orders are not intended to be punitive. They are to put in place a raft of measures to protect the well-being, security and peace of mind of those people who are directly affected by that behaviour."

Victims are all too often overlooked by the criminal justice system and this use of the civil court - where the burden of proof is not as stringent as in a criminal court - is welcome.

Finally, it is reassuring to see communities pulling together to impose the orders. Too often law-enforcement is left to the thin blue line while residents cower in their homes afraid or unwilling to provide evidence. In the Sedgefield case, residents and council joined forces with the police to seek the order.

The verdict on this main plank of Government policy is mixed: ineffectual as a deterrent but useful as a community exercise