Item 3 on the agenda is on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the officials from the Scottish Executive's bill team, who look like the cast for a forthcoming festive musical, such are their numbers. Michael Kellet, head of the Development Department's Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill team, is joined by Gillian Russell from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Executive and by Catherine Brown of the police division of the Justice Department. There is a gentleman whose name-plate I cannot quite identify, as I cannot see that far—I understand that he is Kit Wyeth from the young people and looked-after children division of the Education Department. In the row behind are David Doris of the Development Department antisocial behaviour unit; Brian Cole from the Justice Department community justice services division; and Sharon Grant, also from the community justice services division. Robert Marshall, from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Executive, cannot be with us today—which is probably just as well, because he would have been all on his own in the third row. The numbers look conveniently symmetrical.
Thank you very much for the invitation to come before the committee today. Members of the committee will be aware that legislation on antisocial behaviour was a commitment in the partnership agreement. That commitment arose from ministers' view that antisocial behaviour was a very serious issue in communities throughout Scotland and was not being tackled effectively. It arose from ministers' own experience and that of other MSPs in having to deal with the fallout from antisocial behaviour, week in, week out, in their surgeries and postbags. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a high priority for communities, and it is a high priority for ministers, who are committed to making speedy progress towards dealing with it more effectively.
I have a broad question. I could not help noticing that part 1 of the bill will replace section 83 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Of itself, that is neither here nor there, but it makes me pose the question whether we are rushing things too much. Should we allow a little more time to let that act, which was passed only this year, come into effect and to see what the implications are?
Section 83 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 has not been commenced. Ministers have not done so because, having considered the provision, they decided that it was not adequate to bring the range of stakeholders and local organisations together to tackle antisocial behaviour. If the bill is enacted, section 83 will be repealed and replaced by part 1 of the bill. Ministers are considering means of encouraging local authorities, on a non-statutory basis, to ensure that, in the lull, local agencies continue to work together to tackle antisocial behaviour. Section 83 has not been commenced and, if the bill is enacted, it will be repealed.
To follow on from that, what is wrong with the existing law?
Do you mean the law on bringing together agencies at the local level?
I mean on dealing with antisocial behaviour.
Ministers' view is that the legal framework that is required to tackle antisocial behaviour is not entirely in place. That does not mean that tools to tackle antisocial behaviour do not exist—of course they do—but the bill is designed to fill the gaps that ministers consider exist. The antisocial behaviour strategies are part of that, but the other provisions also flow from that basic premise.
Let me finalise my questioning by asking whether there is any intention to repeal existing common-law offences or statutory offences other than those in the 2003 act.
No. There is no intention to repeal or take away the existing powers. The bill is about supplementing those existing powers with other tools to make the toolbox that local agencies have for tackling antisocial behaviour as full and as broad as it should be.
I know that members are anxious to speak, so we will probably want to devote about an hour to this item, as there is a lot of interest in the bill. I suggest that members should indicate that they want to speak. Rather than each member being required to interrogate rapidly for 10 minutes, members might want to follow the lines of questioning that are being pursued and chip in. I will be as flexible as I can in allowing people to contribute.
Much of the bill has been welcomed by communities around Scotland, but it also contains some contentious proposals. I want to ask about two of those areas: the dispersal of groups and parenting orders.
From the written evidence that was received and the evidence given to ministers during their visits to communities throughout the summer, it was clear that many people live in fear of being a victim of antisocial behaviour. The clear message that ministers got was that people want something done about groups of people of any age who hang about in public places and who, by their very presence, can cause fear and alarm. The measures that are being proposed in the bill are explicitly aimed at addressing those fears.
Sorry, will you clarify whether "such behaviour" is the mere act of congregating?
It is the kind of behaviour that can cause fear and alarm. Members of the public might express concern at the presence of people who are shouting or causing a disturbance and the police or whoever is called might agree that that behaviour causes fear and alarm. The behaviour might not constitute criminal behaviour, but it generates fear.
How will it be possible for individual police officers to judge in such a way that all young people are treated fairly rather than as people who cause fear and alarm? They may just be congregating at the street corner having a chat to one another. Although someone who wants to walk past them might feel some concern, the young people may not pose any threat at all. How will we ensure that there is equality in the way that that is implemented?
The bill seeks to provide a measured approach to the use of the dispersal power. The power cannot be used immediately but is a measured step to deal with a significant and on-going problem. The police will deal with situations as and when and wherever they arise, but the dispersal power is specifically targeted at communities that are suffering in a fairly constant way from groups of individuals who hang about and cause fear and alarm.
We are aware that problems exist in communities, but they are often caused by a small group of people. The vast majority of young people and others do not cause disruption. You talked about key tests. What safeguards are to be put in place to ensure that children can go into another community where they may have friends, meet up with them and play safely in public areas? Children who do not cause harm or distress to anyone must be able to do that. How can we ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to make that possible? How will we ensure that the proposals do not penalise well-behaved children who are just going about their daily business?
It is important to bear in mind what I said in my introduction about the powers under the bill, including the power of dispersal, being set in the context of the antisocial behaviour strategy. The use of the dispersal power should be discussed in that context.
I have one further point to add. Some of the police associations' concerns relate to the possibility that, if powers like this were to be introduced, the police could lose some of the community interaction that they have at the moment. However, as Michael Kellet said, the powers are part of a wider effort to address the situation. The police have made it clear that they do not want to lose the interaction that they have with young people in the community who are behaving well and who are enjoying life.
I will move on to—
I have a question on this aspect—we might as well get all the questions on this aspect out of the way. My concern is that you talked about "groups". I have not looked up a dictionary to see what the definition of a "group" is. [Interruption.] I am assured that a group is two or more people. How are we going to address the fact that a group is defined as two people? The practicalities of that will be extremely difficult to enforce. Why did you choose two people and not three or four?
I think that the definition is the same as the one that is used in other statutory provisions in other pieces of legislation. Certainly, elsewhere, amendments have been lodged to change "groups of people" into "two or more people". Those changes were made for various reasons. I do not think that the police will seek to use anything other than their better judgment when they deal with situations.
What I am struggling to get my head around is not the motivation behind these sections, with which we would all agree, but how they improve on the current situation. If a group of people, young or not, is causing a disturbance by shouting, screaming, drinking or generally making a nuisance of themselves, most police officers will tell you that they can move those people on and that they do not need these new powers, which appear to be bureaucratic, to do so. What is it that stops police officers from doing that?
Ministers heard those arguments in the responses to the consultation. They concluded that the statutory measures would put beyond doubt the police's powers to enforce a time-limited, targeted measure on a particular area that was plagued by behaviour that caused people genuine concern. Ministers were also keen to balance that against normal policing of communities. Normal community interaction by the police would be intended to address a one-off incident in which someone was particularly alarmed by two people. The test is whether the behaviour is on-going, consistent and causing fear and alarm.
I am not asking you to comment on the policy; this is a factual question. Do you accept that where a group of people is causing a disturbance in the street, there is nothing to stop the police from moving those people on right now?
The police have powers to move people on and they have said that. The question is whether those powers are as specific as the provisions that the bill makes for the police in specific areas. Ministers concluded that the bill's provisions put the matter beyond doubt; the police will have powers to act in specific, designated areas.
It is important to be aware that there are two tests for the power of dispersal. The test in section 16 is about authorisation and designation; it is about the superintendent or another senior police officer deciding that antisocial behaviour by groups is a serious problem in a particular area. Before making the designation, he must meet that test and consult the local authority.
You have made my point for me. I have read the two tests, but my point is that if there is a group causing a disturbance tonight at Drumoyne in Govan, a police officer can move it on. Under the bill, the police will have to jump through bureaucratic hoops. The provisions may be intended to clarify the powers that the police already have, but once the bill is enacted, police officers will not just move people on. They will think that they have to go through the procedure and that will make it harder for them rather than easier.
The procedure will apply only where a designation has been made. The important point is that ministers envisage the power giving immediate relief to communities that suffer particularly severely from antisocial behaviour. During the summer, ministers heard evidence from communities throughout Scotland. One of the striking examples that they heard about was sheltered housing complexes in particular communities that were being targeted by groups of people because of the vulnerability of residents. Groups of people were hanging about night after night, causing alarm and distress. Ministers see the power as a means of giving immediate relief to such communities. It will be made clear to local communities that it is not acceptable that groups of people are hanging about, and that if the people are found in contravention of the designation and are causing or are likely to cause trouble, they can be moved on. Ministers believe that that clarification is useful.
They should be moved on anyway, with or without this power, but I will let the matter rest there.
I would like to clarify a couple of points, Mr Kellet. You used the phrase "hanging about"; is the effect of the bill to make the hanging about the offence?
To be clear, the offence is returning to an area in contravention of a direction given by a police officer under section 18. When an order to disperse has been given, and it is properly authorised under the legislation, the offence is clearly committed when the person reappears in the area in contravention of that direction. That is the offence that the bill creates.
But that is the offence—it is when the person goes there.
In contravention of a properly authorised direction by a police officer that the person should not be in that area.
He may be blowing his nose, or recovering his cat or his dog, but if he goes there, that is the offence.
Yes. I think there is a provision in the bill for "reasonable excuse", but it is clear that the offence is going back to an area after a police officer has given a clear direction not to return to the area within the designated time period.
Just to try and get a feel for this, how broad in extent are the phrases "specified period" and "relevant locality"? If a senior police officer decides that all public parks have been noted trouble spots, can he designate those as relevant localities?
We need to discuss that with local police officers. Ministers envisage the powers being carefully targeted on particular areas, which may be small areas, such as sheltered housing complexes, to which I referred in my previous answer.
But under the bill as drafted, they could be generic areas, like "all the public parks in my division".
The test of significant and persistent distress being caused will still need to be met. The police will also need to have consulted the local authority, which is a prerequisite for making a designation.
And what about the phrase "specified time"? Could that be the hours of British summer time, because it is well known, of course, that most of the trouble takes place on summer evenings?
We are giving flexibility to the senior police officer who is making the designation to target effectively times and occasions when antisocial behaviour by groups is a problem in a defined locality. The bill allows a period of designation to last 24 hours. It allows flexibility, so that if the antisocial behaviour happens between 6 and 10 at night, the authorisation could apply during those hours. It is about allowing police officers to target the power when there is a problem in the local area. That is the flexibility that ministers are keen to achieve.
Are there further questions?
I would like to move on to parenting orders. The Executive has stated that, initially, parenting orders will apply only in local authority areas where there are sufficient resources to provide parental support. You will be aware that that level of support within local authorities across Scotland is patchy, so what does that mean? Does it mean that, in practice, we will not be enforcing parenting orders across Scotland? If it does not mean that, what resources will the Executive make available to ensure that that level of support can be provided to parents?
You are right to say that the current provision of such services is patchy—there is no argument about that. The bill enables us to pilot parenting orders in areas where sufficient provision is available. We see it as an initiative that will start on a pilot basis, rather than be rolled out across Scotland at the first instance.
On the issue of imprisonment, are we sure that there will be an opportunity for people to get the support that they need before they run the risk of going to prison because of the actions of their children? What is the Executive's view on the fact that perhaps imprisoning the parents will only add to the problem rather than address the children's problems that lead to their antisocial behaviour?
There would be a number of steps in the process before a court could even consider jailing a parent in such circumstances. As we said, it would require the services to be in place and to have been offered to the parents on a voluntary basis, and the parents not to have engaged with them. The matter would then be referred to a court for a parenting order to be made and the services would then be made available again, but on a statutory basis. The parent would again have to fail to engage with those services. The bill makes it clear that, in those circumstances, the first sanction would be a fine. If that was not paid, there would be a further sanction, which would probably be a supervised attendance order. Only if that were ignored or not taken up could a further fine or, possibly, imprisonment be imposed.
What discussions have you had with the Justice Department about fine defaulters and the Executive's commitment to keeping people who default on their fines out of prison? We do not believe that prison is necessarily the right place for fine defaulters. If the Executive shares that belief, is there not the potential for a contradiction in its policy?
There were announcements last week about the Executive's commitment, with which the committee will be more familiar than we are. The provisions for keeping fine defaulters out of prison, when prison is inappropriate, support this policy. The policy is designed to ensure that, ultimately, children get the parenting that they deserve from their parents. It is not about a punitive measure; it is about ensuring that effective parenting is given. If there are more effective measures than jail for a parent who has not paid their fine for breach of a parenting order, they will work together with this policy. I do not see a contradiction and neither do ministers.
I understand that parenting orders will be a last resort and that parents will be offered all sorts of voluntary support to avoid getting to that stage. Only if they do not take up that support or co-operate will a court order be applied for. I would like to try to get inside the heads of parents in that situation. If they allow themselves to get to the stage at which a court order must be applied for to make them look after their kids, it could be argued that they are not really very interested in the welfare of their kids. The fact of the court process might make them even more hostile to the whole process, instead of making them start to do the right thing. If a parent has to be taken to court to be made to perform the role of a parent, should the question not be asked, at that stage, whether it is in the interests of the child's welfare for them to remain with that parent?
That is right. We are talking about parents with whom it will be difficult to engage and whom it will be difficult to make accept their responsibilities to their children. There is evidence from the evaluation of parenting orders in England to suggest that putting a parent into the court process can create additional barriers to their engaging with the services that are offered. However, the evidence is also that that hurdle can be overcome and that parents on parenting orders who are compelled to attend parenting classes often get over the hurdle, start to re-engage with their children more effectively and take a far bigger role in and have a far bigger influence on their lives. There is some evidence that such an approach works.
We will move on to a broader range of questions.
I will ask about how antisocial behaviour orders will work in practice. You talk about local agencies working together and say that that would have to be the case before an antisocial behaviour order could be sought, because there would have to be some sort of rapport between the local authority, the police and the reporter to the children's panel. At the moment, antisocial behaviour orders apply to people who are over 16. In such cases, co-operation between the police and the local authorities is necessary, and there is a perception that that is not working well in some cases, but you say that such relationships will have to work really well for antisocial behaviour orders for the under-16s. How will we get them to work?
The main thrust of improving joint working is through the antisocial behaviour strategies to which we have referred. They are set out in part 1, which places a duty on the police and local authorities to prepare joint strategies. Other agencies will be consulted on, involved in and to a certain degree engaged in the preparation of those strategies. Through those strategies and the setting up of specialist antisocial behaviour units in local authority areas, the procedures for joint working at a local level will be made more robust. One of the elements of the strategies is that local authorities will be required to report on progress on their implementation, which will include practice in implementing antisocial behaviour orders locally.
In the report "Targeting Anti-Social Behaviour: The Use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in Scotland", which the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland published in the past couple of weeks—we could make copies available if members have not seen it—there is evidence that local authorities believe that, in a large number of cases, ASBOs have been effective in changing the behaviour of the adult who was subject to the ASBO and in ameliorating any problems in the local community.
I suppose that, by the time that we got to the stage of seeking an ASBO for an under-16, that young person would be well known to the local authority, the police and the children's panel, because the ASBO is a last resort. Some organisations believe that we do not need that last resort. They believe that, if we properly use other kinds of programmes—such as supervision orders and community service orders—and have a strong input into the lives of such young people, antisocial behaviour orders will not be necessary.
For the most part, the disposals that are available through the children's hearings and other alternatives prove effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour, but there is a small minority of persistently antisocial young people whose behaviour has a disproportionate impact on communities and, in some instances, the court order is required to make clear that that behaviour is unacceptable. Ministers are confident that the extension of ASBOs to under-16s will have a positive impact by protecting people from antisocial behaviour, changing the behaviour of those subject to the orders and acting as a deterrent to others.
It has also been put to me that ASBOs for under-16s should be dealt with by the children's panel and not through the courts.
That was certainly suggested during the consultation period in the discussions that I mentioned earlier. Our view was that such a court order would change the essential nature of the children's hearings system as a forum that looks holistically at the circumstances surrounding a child and takes action in the best interests of that child. We thought that giving it the power to impose a fairly directive order and a potential criminal penalty if that order was not complied with would change the fundamental nature of the children's hearings system. That is the main reason why ministers thought that dealing with ASBOs through the courts was the appropriate mechanism for under-16s as well as for adults.
Jackie Baillie has a question.
Can I say something about ASBOs?
I think that Jackie Baillie wants to ask about them.
Thank you, convener—you will get a chance in a minute, Mike.
The answer to your first question is yes. It is clear that interim ASBOs will apply to under-16s. The bill makes it clear that the breach provisions for someone who is under 16 are different from those for an adult. There is a provision in the bill whereby, if a child is prosecuted for breach of an ASBO, a penalty of imprisonment will not be available unless there are other separate offences and nominally more serious offences that go alongside that breach.
So what is the penalty?
In such situations, if the only criminal offence before a court is a breach of the ASBO by someone who is under 16, the court would have all the options open to it, apart from imprisonment.
So a 14-year-old would be fined.
A whole range of options would be open to a criminal court. The bill provides that imprisonment is the only option that is not available in such situations.
The bill refers to the "specified person" being
The reasoning was that a balance had to be struck. Ministers suggested in the consultation paper that we published in June that 12 might be an appropriate age at which ASBOs could be effective. There was a need to ensure that not too many children at too young an age would be brought into the court process. Moreover, for the measure to be effective, a child would need to understand the process that they were going through. Ministers took the view that, if the age limit for ASBOs were to be lowered below 16, 12 would be an appropriate cut-off; that view was largely supported in the consultation responses that we received. Of course, that does not mean that, if a younger person were involved in serious offences, the normal laws and criminal procedure would not apply. An ASBO would not necessarily be an appropriate vehicle for dealing with such behaviour at that stage.
In addition, for civil-law purposes, a child who is aged 12 or over is presumed to have legal capacity to instruct a solicitor to defend in any civil proceedings and ASBOs obviously belong to the civil proceedings context. We thought that the age limit of 12 tied in neatly with that.
We have talked about how the extended use of ASBOs will apply to very small numbers of offenders. The reason behind my question is that the use of ASBOs would therefore apply only to very small numbers of people who are under 12.
That is a fair point, but I still think that ministers would say that 12 is the appropriate age limit to strike the balance that I have described.
Does the same explanation apply to community reparation orders, which also have a 12-to-21 age grouping?
I understand that the rationale is exactly the same.
That is indeed the case. We need to recall that CROs will be confined to summary cases. The courts deal with only a very small number of summary cases that involve people who are under 16.
Right. Have you finished your questions, Mike?
I think that Nicola Sturgeon has a question.
Wait a minute—I am convening the meeting. Have you finished?
I am sorry; I thought that Nicola Sturgeon was going to come in.
There is a common-law power of arrest in relation to antisocial behaviour orders, but there was some ambiguity about whether certain breaches constituted an arrestable offence, so to clarify the position and to put it beyond doubt, we are creating a statutory power of arrest.
On the same general topic, what would you say to the general observation that, under the bill, civil procedures will be used to tackle what is effectively criminal behaviour? For example, ASBOs are a civil measure, at least until one gets to the point of a breach, and the civil procedure can be very lengthy, although I admit that there are interim ASBOs. If someone challenges, or appeals against, an order, the whole civil process, which involves options hearings and civil proofs, has to be gone through—that is a lengthy procedure. Perhaps we should be trying to fast-track such people through the hearings system or the youth court that is being piloted. How does the proposal on ASBOs fit in with the youth court, for example? Would it not be more appropriate to fast-track some of the persistent young offenders down that route, rather than to put them into the civil courts, which, as someone has already said, can take years to come to a conclusion?
There are a number of aspects to that issue. In reality, it is a question of horses for courses—it is about giving agencies at local level a number of options to use. The decision on which option—an ASBO, the fast-track children's hearings system or some other means—is most appropriate in a particular situation will be made locally. I do not think that ministers would accept that there need be a long delay in obtaining an order that is effective, particularly now that interim ASBOs have been introduced. We have anecdotal evidence, from Fife in particular, that over the summer interim orders have been obtained in just one or two days. It looks as though interim orders are being used successfully in a number of areas. They allow speedy and effective control of individuals' behaviour.
My question is about restriction of liberty orders. What are the practicalities of issuing such orders? For adults, the orders generally work by keeping the offenders at home—to stop them going out and housebreaking or whatever. How would the orders be used for young teenagers? Would they be used not to keep them at home but to keep them away from particular places or to ensure that they went to school? I believe that there is a restriction on the number of hours a day that RLOs can be used on a person. What is the ministers' thinking on those issues?
As members will know, restriction of liberty orders have gone through a piloting period; they have been available to all courts in Scotland for 18 months. They have been proven to be quite a successful measure for courts to take—for keeping a person off the street or out of a pub where they might be prone to causing trouble at certain times of the night or on certain days of the week, for example.
Would the orders be used in a different way for young people? I was wondering about school. Could a restriction of liberty order be used if someone was not in school during school hours, for example?
A tag would not necessarily be used; there are other things that we can do. It is possible to use voice verification, in which a person phones a number and their voice is taped so that a computer can recognise their voice pattern. However, in pilot schemes in England and Wales a few years ago, magistrates and local authorities refrained from using tags in schools, mainly because it was thought that tagging might cause disruption to the child or teenager and might mean that others would label a child who needed support as a criminal.
Restriction of liberty orders have been touted as an alternative to secure accommodation. You give the impression that you do not think that the orders would be used terribly often because of the effect that they might have on vulnerable children. Is there a balance to be struck?
The balance is struck in the Executive's proposal to offer RLOs to the children's hearings system as part of a package of support measures. It would not be a blanket package of measures; not everyone who went through the children's hearings system and needed a package of support would necessarily be given a tag. The package would be carefully thought out and assessed, as would the person's needs. In the court system, courts would not tag someone who was assessed as being unsuitable for tagging. They would look towards putting other support measures in place to assist the child or teenager in rehabilitation or in interventions to stop their offending behaviour.
Do you see RLOs as a way of trying to control chaotic behaviour?
In the adult system, there is evidence from feedback from individual offenders that RLOs have brought some order into their life and have broken the pattern of offending. The orders have taken the younger offenders in particular away from peer group pressure, because they have been able to say, "I can't go out because it's my restriction time. If I go out I'll breach it and then I'm in even more trouble." RLOs have influenced some offenders to break the pattern.
Are RLOs intended as a substitute for secure accommodation for under-16s?
The bill is clear on that matter. It is important to be clear that we are talking about electronic monitoring in two separate contexts in the bill: one is in respect of RLOs as a court-based disposal and the other is in respect of RLOs as a disposal by the children's hearings system. In respect of the children's hearings system, the bill provides that a hearing may, if it so chooses, impose an electronic monitoring requirement. It is not necessary for that child to meet the criteria for secure accommodation before an electronic monitoring requirement is put in place.
I am aware that there are other aspects of the bill that we have not touched on, such as children's hearings and fixed penalties. Do members have questions on any of those areas?
I am conscious that the closure of premises is an issue in England and Wales. There is a debate about why we have assumed the powers in Scotland. Can you give us any idea of the scale of the problem that is perceived in Scotland? Closure of premises applies to domestic as well as non-domestic premises and there is deep concern that the powers would conflict with existing housing legislation. I wonder whether part of the problem is that the police, rather than local authorities, will be using that power.
On the scale of the problem, ministers accept that the power of closure of premises is targeted at persistent antisocial behaviour. They do not envisage it being used often or liberally. The power is targeted at serious problems in community premises that are the centre—almost the epicentre—of antisocial behaviour. That may include drinking dens or premises that are the centre of drug dealing. The power is intended to give communities relief from serious and concentrated antisocial behaviour. I hope that that answers the first point.
So the problem is just moved on.
No. The power is not about moving the problem on; it is about giving immediate relief to communities that are suffering from an intense problem. If there are serious problems, we expect that a closure order would be used in conjunction with other measures, such as the police investigating serious drug dealing, for example, so that the problem will not just be displaced.
Part 11 of the bill relates to fixed-penalty notices. Are you aware of any monitoring or evaluation of the piloting of fixed-penalty notices in England and Wales? Has any consideration been given to holding a pilot in which the fixed-penalty notices are levied not by the police but by an antisocial behaviour task force? I had discussions with North Lanarkshire Council's antisocial behaviour task force, which has been successful in obtaining 59 ASBOs and nine interim ASBOs in the past few years. The task force believes that it should be able to levy fixed-penalty notices—because one of its responsibilities is to connect with all agencies, it has a much better idea of where the problems are in North Lanarkshire. Have you had representations on that? What would your thoughts be?
Down south, there was a series of pilots on fixed-penalty notices for low-level antisocial behaviour along similar lines to those that we propose to introduce under the bill. I have a paper in front of me that shows that, in a pilot conducted by West Midlands police, fixed-penalty notices were able to save a police officer at least two hours in the preparation of case papers, as opposed to the normal reporting of a case to the Crown Prosecution Service. Although the systems north and south of the border are different and separate, we hope that similar savings in police and court time can be realised in Scotland. There is some evidence from down south that fixed-penalty notices are working well.
Part 7 of the bill deals with antisocial behaviour notices. I concede that I might be reading this wrongly, but it seems strange to me that an antisocial behaviour notice can be served on a landlord as a result of his tenant's antisocial behaviour. If the landlord does not take the action required by the notice—presumably to curb the antisocial behaviour of the tenant—one of the penalties is the removal of his right to charge rent. Does that not at least create the danger that a tenant who is behaving antisocially will be rewarded by not having to pay rent? Perhaps we would be providing a perverse incentive for tenants to behave antisocially.
I apologise—despite the size of the team here today, housing colleagues who have responsibility for that part of the bill are not here, and I do not have that information. Rather than guessing at an answer, I think that it might be more appropriate for us to write to the committee to explain the rationale behind section 53. I apologise.
That is okay.
I have a simple question about community reparation orders. How do they differ from the community service orders that the courts have at their disposal at the moment?
They differ in a number of ways. A community reparation order is for between 10 and 100 hours; a community service order is for between 80 and either 240 or 300 hours, depending on the nature of the charge. A community service order is, by statute, an alternative to custody. In other words, it is at the high end of the tariff. A community reparation order is confined to summary cases and is deliberately designed to be a low-tariff sentencing option for the courts. Those are the principal differences.
What about supervised attendance orders?
Historically, supervised attendance orders have been used with fine defaulters. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 contains a provision for the orders to be used as a disposal of first instance, but that was restricted to cases involving 16 and 17-year-olds. Changes brought about by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 have removed that age barrier. Nevertheless, differences remain. The use of the orders as a disposal of first instance has not been applied in the meantime and will be piloted. It is important to remember that the orders will not necessarily contain a period of reparation. Many current schemes in the country comprise modules that are based around money management and life skills. They do not necessarily include any unpaid work being done for the community, which is what community reparation orders are designed for.
We have not talked in any great detail about the effect of the bill on children's hearings. A number of respondents have been concerned about electronic monitoring in the hearings system. Has there been dialogue with people in the children's hearings system on how they propose to deal with the new powers?
As part of the extensive consultation process that ministers and officials undertook over the summer, we met a number of children's hearings interests, including the group representing the chairs of children's panels throughout Scotland. We continue that dialogue and are meeting them again next week. It is fair to say that they had concerns about some of the proposed measures, but, on the whole, they were supportive. They certainly saw a place for electronic monitoring in the hearings system, as long as it was used appropriately as part of a package of support measures and was not used on its own.
A provision will enable a reporter to request a sheriff to make an order to enforce the implementation of a supervision requirement. Does that provision sit happily with what children's hearings seek to do?
Responses from children's panel chairs and children's panel interests were supportive of that measure. A concern that was raised by the recent Audit Scotland report was that some supervision requirements are not implemented—some young people's needs are not being met for various reasons. The respondents welcomed the provision that would allow a reporter or a hearing to refer to a court when a local authority was not implementing a supervision requirement.
Might there not be confusion between, on one hand, the role of children's hearings and the power of the reporter, and, on the other, the role of the sheriff court?
I would not think so, necessarily. It is for the hearing to decide what it considers to be in the interests of the child, which will be put in the supervision requirement. If that is not being implemented by the authority, the panel will be able to invite the sheriff to consider the situation to decide whether there is a need to compel the local authority to comply with the conditions of the requirement.
Section 104, in part 12 of the bill, places a number of duties on local authorities. Has the Executive costed the additional resources that will be required to enable local authorities to fulfil their obligations?
As you are probably aware, a package of money has been made available to help to support the measures in the antisocial behaviour strategy. Obviously, some of those measures are more relevant to the youth justice side, including issues around supervision requirements and local authority duties. At this stage, the question is one of exploring with local authorities and others exactly what the resourcing gap is in order to help them to implement supervision requirements and to provide some of the services that do not exist at the moment, such as the parenting services that we discussed earlier. There is a recognition that there is a resource gap and that resources have to be allocated to deal with that. There still has to be detailed discussion about exactly how much money will be required and that discussion will take place shortly.
On the closure of premises, fairly extensive measures are available under the liquor licensing legislation to close premises if the licence to use the premises is being abused. Again, is there any intention to repeal or clarify legislation?
No. The ministers' view is that if there are problems with antisocial behaviour in relation to licensed premises, they should be dealt with, in the first instance, through the licensing system, although we appreciate that the system is undergoing change at the moment. The closure power in the bill would apply only if that process had failed to deal with a problem.
Is it therefore anticipated that the powers in the bill in respect of premises will be directed predominantly at residential premises? I am sure that all committee members have constituents who have had grounds to complain about the conduct of occupants of a dwelling house. However, the police often find it difficult to take action unless an offence has been committed in the house. I am curious to know what the underlying rationale for the inclusion of the provision was. What premises are being identified as those that the police need more powers to deal with?
The premises are varied, including residential properties and flats. They also include empty and boarded-up retail premises that have been broken into and have become a centre of serious antisocial behaviour as a result of being used for drug dealing or as a drinking den. The measure is about giving immediate relief to communities and allowing the police to deal with particular problems where, for example, after the police have arrested a person who was dealing drugs out of such a property, another drug dealer moves in. In such situations, the police could deal not only with the individuals, but with the premises that were causing the problems in the local area. The measure is a tool that is over and above existing powers, but ministers consider that it will be useful in dealing with serious problems relating to antisocial behaviour.
On RLOs, I note that you said that there would be full involvement by the children's hearings system. However, representatives of the children's hearings system in Lanarkshire have raised concerns that RLOs might pose a threat to children. Often, children's antisocial behaviour is a manifestation of the fact that they are being abused at home or are living in an abusive environment; forcing such children to stay at home puts them further at risk. I would like to know more about the Executive's thinking on the matter.
The ministers' view would be that any decision to impose a tag, whether by the court or the children's hearings system, should be made only with full knowledge of the circumstances of the child. The ministers' view would be that, in such a situation as you describe, in which a child's safety was at threat in the home, an RLO that confined the child to the home would be wholly inappropriate. It is important that the mechanisms in the bill allow the decision-making forum to have full information about the child. The ministers' view is that they do.
Sometimes, social services are not aware that there is an abuse problem because abusers are often good at covering their tracks. Some abusers masquerade as upstanding citizens and we might not be able to identify those parents from whom children are at risk. I agree that we can deal with the problem where we recognise it, but I am concerned about situations in which we are not aware of the problem.
I suppose that the ministers' view would be that that is a problem that applies across the board and does not relate only to RLOs. For example, the children's hearings system can already require a child to reside at home with its parents—that supervision requirement is used often. The only solution to that problem is having local agencies work together at a local level to ensure that the fullest possible information about a child is brought together in the decision-making forum.
As part of the use of the RLOs in the children's hearings system, guidance will be prepared for panel members and training will be made available to them to help them to use their judgment to the best possible effect when they are considering whether to restrict the liberty of a young person.
I thank Mr Kellet and his team for their time.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Subordinate Legislation