Official Report 250KB pdf
Welcome to the meeting. We have received apologies from Tim Hopkins, a policy worker from the Equality Network, who is unable to attend owing to illness.
Certainly. The National Autistic Society is a United Kingdom-wide organisation. I represent the Scottish headquarters, which are based in Glasgow. In Scotland, the society has almost 1,000 parent members. When the consultation process began, we were keen to consult not only our staff working on projects and providing services throughout Scotland, but our parent members. As a UK-wide organisation, we were able to work with colleagues in England who were going through a similar phase of scrutiny of antisocial behaviour legislation. We were keen to play a full and active part in the consultation process and we think that we have done so. We responded to the initial consultation, prepared a briefing paper for the pre-legislative scrutiny and wrote to a number of MSPs outlining our concerns. We certainly welcome the consultation process, which has been full and in which all sides have been active.
Does your organisation acknowledge that there is an issue with antisocial behaviour in our communities? We will explore in a moment any caveats about how the bill might impact on young people with autism and their parents, but is there an acceptance or understanding of why the bill has been introduced?
Yes, without a doubt. We understand fully the Executive's rationale for introducing the bill. Obviously, we have specific concerns about the population group that we represent, but we recognise the need for some form of legislation in this area.
Good morning. The bill's definition of antisocial behaviour—which was also used in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—is behaviour where a person
Although we recognise that there is a need for antisocial behaviour legislation, for the population group that we represent—families affected by autism in Scotland—the definition is by far the biggest problem. It is too broad. The definition of behaving
Local authority housing officials have given us evidence that, in fulfilling their responsibilities, they would take into consideration section 4(3) of the bill, which states:
The concept of reasonableness is interesting, but it poses difficulties for children and young people with autism, who may not be able to prove that their behaviour was reasonable according to the definition. They may need someone to prove on their behalf that their behaviour was reasonable. As I understand it, that is not possible under the bill. Therefore, although the concept of reasonableness is interesting, it may not support children and young people with autism.
Let me move on to another issue that has been raised with us, although I am not sure whether you can comment on it. The committee has received evidence that crimes that are motivated by hatred or malice towards a social group are being bracketed within the definition of antisocial behaviour. Do you have a view on that?
Yes. We noted with interest the response from the Disability Rights Commission on that issue. The matter could be better dealt with by hate crime legislation than by the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Certainly, children and young people—and, indeed, adults—affected by autism are vulnerable to prejudice, bullying and a range of antisocial behaviour. However, we feel that their rights would be better served by measures other than the bill.
This is my final question for now. Are you saying that the bill could provide protection for people who are autistic?
Yes, that is possible. We are aware of cases in which vulnerable people with autism have been the subject of attacks in the local community. I know of a young man who was subjected to taunts and whose home was graffitied. The police were called initially, but because of the nature of the individual's condition, he was unable, as a lone individual, to find the communication skills to articulate his views in a way that would secure him protection. Therefore, I am not sure that the bill would support that individual or people like him.
I suspect that my colleagues will develop that point.
I want to pursue the question of defining antisocial behaviour in a way that does not involve autistic people whose behaviour may unintentionally upset others. I was sent a copy of the House of Lords Hansard of the committee stage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment on a matter similar to the one that we are discussing; he tried to introduce the phrase "wilfully or recklessly" into the bill, but his amendment was defeated. It seems that the word "reckless" has a long legal pedigree—certainly in England—but I would not use that sort of word in such a context. Can you suggest a wording for the bill that would protect autistic people but not allow, for example, a youth from a gang to claim, as an excuse to get off from something, that he did not realise that what he had been doing would cause trouble?
We observed with interest when Lord Clement-Jones proposed his amendment at the committee stage in the House of Lords. The idea of using the phrase "wilfully or recklessly" was to try to separate knowledge of an act from intent, to make it clear that there was intent. We feel that that definition, or something similar that indicated an individual's intent, would safeguard children and young people with autism. We have not given wider thought to other client groups, but we would be happy to reconsider the matter and suggest alternative wordings or to listen to the committee's suggestions on the matter.
Amendments and their wording come at a later stage of the bill, but what you said is helpful. However, I will display my ignorance by asking you to tell me what the Latin words "mens rea" in your written submission mean in the legal sense.
I am afraid that you will have to ask a lawyer. I apologise for that.
That is fine. I will do that.
I want to pick up on your example of the young man who was targeted in the community. I assume that it is the National Autistic Society Scotland's experience, as it is that of broader disability groups, that such incidents are a big issue for people with disabilities, who are sometimes targeted and harassed. Your example was a serious one, where property was damaged. However, the young man was unable to explain what had happened. Rather than suggesting that there is a problem with the bill, does that case not suggest that there is an issue about ensuring that the victim of a crime gets appropriate support to explain what happened? The issue is about appropriate support for victims in such circumstances. The police should be geared up to ask questions of somebody who is vulnerable in the way that you described.
There are issues with the bill, but I agree that there must be better support and protection for vulnerable people who are affected by autism. There must be wider understanding and training across all statutory agencies, whether the police or any other agency that is involved in the criminal justice system.
If organisations were given the necessary training and awareness at an early stage, perhaps some of your concerns that people on the autistic spectrum might be swept up into the ambit of the legislation would at least be partially addressed.
Yes, without a shadow of doubt that would partially address our concerns. If such training took place, that would be a welcome step forward.
Young people with learning disabilities use Glasgow's internal transport service and there is a big issue about their buses being identified and targeted. For anyone sitting on that bus, or for their families, the key issue is not the intent of the people who are harassing them, but stopping the harassment. We may at some point want to address whatever ignorance has created a situation in which targeting or harassing somebody is regarded as a reasonable act. However, it is reasonable to ask for such acts to be stopped.
It is undoubtedly reasonable to ask for them to be stopped. However, the issue of intent is crucial; in dealing with such matters, we would have to show that there was clear intention. Many young people and adults with autism will, by the nature of their condition, behave in a manner that is likely to cause harm or distress. At the most recent meeting of the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder, a parent of a child with autism gave a good example of such an incident, in which an individual went into a local shop and, because of the literal, black-and-white understanding that many people with autism have of the social rules around them, saw what they regarded as offensive literature on a shelf and started to make a great fuss. Other customers and the shopkeeper would undoubtedly have found that behaviour distressing. Under the bill as it stands, it is possible for such an individual, without understanding why, to be drawn into the legal measures against antisocial behaviour.
Such a situation could be sorted out quickly with an explanation of what the behaviour was about. The point that I want you to address is the situation where vulnerable people are deliberately rather than accidentally targeted. Regardless of what causes people to want to target somebody with a learning disability, the first priority for the targeted person is having the harassing behaviour stopped.
Absolutely. The best way for that to happen would be the alternative measures that the Disability Rights Commission—
So you would make a distinction between the targeting of vulnerable people with learning disabilities and the targeting of other vulnerable groups and communities, such as elderly people.
Yes. The Disability Rights Commission was spot on when it talked about alternative provisions for people with disabilities. Autism is neither a learning disability nor a mental health problem; it is a developmental disorder, which deserves particular consideration.
In that case, what is the protection for straightforwardly identifiable vulnerable groups in the community? We understand why you want crimes against the range of groups to which you referred to be dealt with as hate crimes. However, if someone is simply vulnerable because they live in the wrong place, have made a fuss about someone's behaviour in the past, or are elderly or just a bit different, what would be their protection?
Our view is that the bill is clearly intended to protect a wider population than people with autism. Clearly, we are biased because we have come to the meeting to talk about our client group. I am sure that there will be measures in the bill to protect the wider population. However, we believe that, to protect vulnerable people affected by autism, alternative provisions would be preferable.
The bill will require councils to draw up an antisocial behaviour strategy. You made a point about educating public officials, children's panel members and other such people about autism. How should that best be fixed into the strategy? Are you realistically in a position to deal with, for example, councils who might be instructed to consult your organisation? What is the best mechanism of ensuring that your views are taken into account?
The idea of having a strategy at local authority level is excellent. The National Autistic Society would certainly welcome participation with any local authority in Scotland. However, beyond our perspective, the involvement of families and individuals affected by autism who are willing and able to take part in any consultation is crucial. We would like all statutory and voluntary agencies to be involved in the process, because that is the only way in which there will be wider understanding and appreciation of some of the sensitivities.
We have opened up the subject of support for victims. I was struck by the fact that, when an antisocial behaviour order is taken out, lots of people get a copy of it, but the victims of the antisocial behaviour that the order is supposed to stop do not get a copy by right. This is a leading question: do you think that that is right?
We have not considered that in great detail. It would be inappropriate for the victims not to receive the information that others have. If they do not get the same information as has been circulated to others, that seems to be an inequality in the system.
Do you have experience of the existing system of antisocial behaviour orders and how they help, or fail to help, victims?
We have experience in a number of ways. However, given the way in which ASBOs are currently made in Scotland, there are no data to elaborate on the circumstances of the individual, particularly if they have a disability, so we cannot comment in great detail on the current system.
The example that you have given was not of the autistic person as a victim, in relation to the way in which the system operates. In that case, the child was perceived as the cause of other people's distress. You are arguing, therefore, that the system does not take account of people's conditions. As it is not clear to lay people—as I presume the neighbours were in that case—that an autistic person is causing their distress, how can we help them to understand?
The problem is huge and will require education, training and awareness raising across all statutory agencies. The National Autistic Society Scotland undertook a piece of work with the Scottish Executive over some years to try to reach out to staff in social work departments throughout the 32 local authorities. We worked with 31 authorities and reached 4,000 social work staff, which is about 4 per cent of the social work population in Scotland. That indicates the scale of the issue, but the fact that the problem is so big is not a reason not to tackle it. To make the system work, we have to provide education and awareness raising for social work staff, for children's panel members, for reporters and, indeed, for sheriffs. If we do not, people in the system will have no understanding of autism and they will not deal appropriately with situations involving autism.
Are you aware of existing guidance that places on the various authorities an obligation to establish whether developmental, health or other conditions are associated with the person who is perceived to be causing antisocial behaviour? Do you support the introduction of such guidance?
We are aware of a few examples. Some police forces operate a responsible adult system and prepare guidance for their police officers on special needs for people whom they take into custody or deal with in other ways. That is commendable; we would like to see much more of that kind of approach. Social work departments have clear guidelines and, if they are working with a child or young person, they are meant to take into account the full range of that person's needs. We know anecdotally from many hundreds if not thousands of families throughout Scotland that, when they meet their social workers for the first time—and, indeed, for the 10th or 11th time—the parents are the primary educators for the social workers on their children's needs and on what autism is.
What proportion of people who suffer from autism have contact with social workers? I do not automatically assume that such contact would necessarily happen or need to happen.
I do not have any figures with me, but I can pass figures on to you.
Do you have any anecdotal evidence?
A large number of families have access to social work departments because they need help with the disability living allowance and a range of community supports, such as accessing local facilities. A large number of families need to access social work to get some of their child's basic needs met.
Because I still have not got my mind around it, I must come back to the issue of people who suffer from autism and are perceived to be the source of antisocial behaviour. The agencies involved are working with those who are perceived and perceive themselves—no doubt reasonably—to be the victims of antisocial behaviour, but how can the person who is the source of that perceived antisocial behaviour be recognised as having a condition that leads to that behaviour, which would be viewed as a problem if it was exhibited by someone who was not suffering from the condition? It seems to me that the agencies are outside the problem, so to speak. A couple of police forces are doing well, but how can we get everybody to do well and not take the legalistic route to resolution?
That is the crux of the issue for us. All agencies and all staff in those agencies need to have an understanding of the condition. When families, parents and carers, who know their child or young person exceptionally well, say, "My child has autism," that must be understood immediately or as quickly as possible, so that we can avoid the legalistic route. A family in which someone is affected by autism suffers a great deal of pressure; bringing such a family into a legal forum adds greatly to that pressure and can result in additional problems for the family. We want those families to be dealt with in a more supportive and caring environment, rather than to be brought into the legal system.
In the case in England to which you referred, was the court aware that the family that was going to be subject to the antisocial behaviour order had an autistic child?
I do not have that information with me, but I can get it to you; I would not like to say yes or no at this stage.
You talked about a young person being pulled into the legal system. Is there potential for the children's hearings system to be supportive of a vulnerable young person who has perhaps become caught up in group behaviour or has been wound up to be involved in inappropriate behaviour from which, because of their condition, they find it difficult to extricate themselves? That would avoid the hostile court system. If the children's panel members were properly trained, the children's hearings system could be supportive, which might allow some of the issues to be addressed rather than hidden.
I agree with you. The children's hearings system is an excellent vehicle. I am actually a former children's panel member, so I am aware of some of the practicalities of the system. I would welcome the children's hearings system having a role, but under the current arrangements, any child or young person can be referred to the children's hearings system by any individual in Scotland. I am not clear why additional measures would be required in the bill to refer a child.
But the point that I was making was that there would not necessarily be a threat to a young person who was being referred for causing a problem in their local community, because systems would be in place to identify that they had a problem. At a very simple level, if the police wrote a letter to a family because a young person had behaved in what the police deemed to be an inappropriate way, the family could intervene at an early stage and say, "Actually, this is why that happened." The police would then be able to address the situation appropriately. Alternatively, the school could be involved. There are lots of ways to identify the needs of individual youngsters before the system takes over and tramples on all that information.
As I said, children and young people with autism can be referred to the children's hearings system under the present arrangements. We would rather that that happened than that they be drawn in under the antisocial behaviour legislation.
But if caveats are in place to identify at an early stage that a young person has been inappropriately referred and so should not be dealt with in the same way, could not it be argued that the provisions are appropriate for some young people who do not have the condition that you identify? If that is the case, and the ones who are inappropriately referred are pulled out, the ones who have been appropriately referred can be dealt with. You seem to be suggesting that because of your fears that somebody might be pulled into the system and dealt with inappropriately, we cannot take the risk of dealing with the people who are causing the problems that you have already accepted are an issue.
We must be clear: we are not against the proposed legislation per se. We are concerned about the definitions, which will draw in people with autism. We do not have a particular view on the wider population. We understand that the Executive needs to make a move with regard to the wider population. Our concerns are about the vulnerable people who are affected by autism.
If we assume that some children and young people with autism may still be involved in the youth justice system at some point, do you agree that the children's hearings system would have a better chance of adapting and improving its procedures to meet their needs than the court system would have? Do you also agree that if ASBOs are applied to under-16s, it should happen through the children's hearings system, so that there is less chance of young people with autism—who are your specific interest—going through the court system?
If it has to happen at all, there is no doubt that the children's hearings system would be by far the best vehicle. We would like training for children's panel members to take place on a much more comprehensive scale than it currently does. We have been working with a number of children's panel training units to offer basic autism awareness training to a small number of children's panel members in Scotland. The response that we have had from the training units indicates that people would like much more such training. We are simply giving people a tiny flavour of what autism is, rather than a comprehensive understanding.
In your submission, you express concern that the extension of ASBOs to 12 to 15-year-olds might
The example to which you refer certainly demonstrated how a vulnerable young person was drawn into the system in England.
Was the ASBO in that case taken out against the young person or against their parents?
I think that the mechanism is slightly different in England and that ASBOs are taken out against the parents, but I can seek clarification on that. The bill proposes a system that is different from the English one.
I have come across a few cases of young people with autism or Asperger's syndrome and I have appreciated the assistance that I have received from the National Autistic Society Scotland. I understand your concerns and take your point about the need to educate the people who are involved in the children's hearings system, the police and the courts.
The provision does not give us a great deal of comfort. I touched earlier on the principle of reasonableness; I think that it would be incumbent on the individual to prove that their behaviour was reasonable. Our knowledge of children and young people with autism and the nature of the condition is such that we are not convinced that the child or young person would be able to prove that their behaviour was reasonable. Much of the behaviour of children and young people with autism comes across as quite irrational and unusual, so if it were incumbent on the child to prove that their behaviour was reasonable, I do not see how they would be able to do so.
On your reading of the bill, would it be for the individual to prove that their behaviour was reasonable, or could the individual be supported, for example by someone from the social work department or their family?
It would be much better if the wording in section 4(3) were changed slightly, so that the responsibility to prove the reasonableness of a person's behaviour could lie with someone who was supporting the person as well as with the person themselves. I am concerned that the bill would place the responsibility on someone with a disability.
Perhaps we can bring that to the minister's attention when she appears before the committee. My reading of the bill is certainly that the individual themselves would have to prove the reasonableness of their behaviour.
I assumed that the provision simply requires the case to be made. In the legal system, a case does not have to be made by the individual who is in the system. I assume that it would be acceptable if advocacy and local community mediation projects, of which there are many examples, became involved in such cases. We can certainly ask for clarification.
I would have assumed that, too, so perhaps we have misunderstood that section.
That would be a much better system.
As I said, I have had some local experience of young people with Asperger's syndrome or an autistic spectrum disorder, but I have never experienced a situation in which a neighbour complained about the behaviour of a young person with such a condition, so I am in unfamiliar territory. I accept that people with learning disabilities who are different in some way can be harassed or deliberately annoyed by other people. I know about the work that your organisation does and the contact that you have with parents. Other than the trampolining incident, can you provide the committee with examples of parents coming to you for advice and support because they have been harassed by neighbours or because the local authority has been heavy handed and has not taken into account a young person's needs?
Yes. We can communicate a range of examples to the committee in writing. Shelter Scotland gave an example of a housing situation in Scotland in which a family—a mother and child—were involved in a dispute with a local authority because the child was affected by autism and was very active. The family lived in a flat and the neighbours in the flat below complained to the council about the noise that the child made running round the flat. Such a situation is incredibly difficult to manage in a child who is affected by autistic spectrum disorder. The council refused to transfer the family to another property, but it stopped the mother's housing benefit, in small part because she had some rent arrears, but largely because the neighbours said that she was not using the flat as her main address. Because the mother was trying to stay out of the flat with the child as much as possible during the day to stop the child from upsetting the neighbours, the neighbours assumed that she must be living elsewhere. The mother was trying to be as quiet as possible and to look after her neighbours' needs.
Can you say which authority that was?
I can certainly provide some of the details. That is only one example—we have many other examples of such disputes.
I have a question on the back of Cathie Craigie's point. Is not it the case that many people with an autistic spectrum disorder do not receive an accurate diagnosis?
I agree that diagnosis is an issue.
We heard that point last week from the chairman of the Glasgow children's panel. He spoke about a child who had been involved in persistent offending for years before a diagnosis was made. Cathie Craigie's point is that there may be instances in which a person has an autistic spectrum disorder that is not diagnosed.
I very much agree with that.
That was not the point that I was making, although I know that a lot of education about autistic spectrum disorder is required. When I came to the Parliament, I knew little about it; I had never in my life come across anybody with Asperger's syndrome. Members have to learn, as do other people. However, that was not the point that I was making and education is not covered in the bill, although I know that Robert McKay and his colleagues will do everything that they can to make people more aware of the issues. I simply wanted examples of people who go to his organisation for support. Local authorities have perhaps taken out antisocial behaviour orders without recognising that there is a problem with the health of a young person in the family. If you have any examples of such cases, I would be pleased to receive more information about them.
In response to both the members' points, I can give an example of a young person in the children's hearings system whose diagnosis was not fully understood by members of the system. At the hearing, the child became exceptionally distressed to the point that the members felt that the child should be placed in secure accommodation. For any child or young person with autism, changes of routine are not met with open arms; they are a great problem.
I did not see anything about the dispersal of groups in your written submission. Clearly, you have read the bill and, as there has been quite a bit of media coverage as well, I assume that you understand what that provision is about.
I do.
If you do not think that the matter is relevant in relation to the group of people about whom you are here to talk, that is fine, but do you have any comments on whether the power will be beneficial? Do you think that there should be specific facilities for young people?
I would approach the issue from the point of view of the vulnerability of people with autism. Many young people with autism are easily led. They can be influenced by their peers in positive ways, quite successfully in some cases, but we understand that they could easily be drawn into becoming part of a group of people who are engaging in antisocial behaviour. Our concerns would relate to their needs being recognised if the police were attempting to disperse a group.
Do you have any comments about whether the power would be of benefit in those situations?
No, we have no comments on that.
Earlier, we spoke about the man who was targeted by young people and had graffiti painted on his property and so on. If groups of youngsters were to gather regularly outside his home, knowing that they could wind him up if they behaved in certain ways, and he found it difficult to negotiate with them or to seek help from other people, the police could move them on, but they could come back again. He would not be able to say that crimes were being committed, but clearly he would be distressed by the young people. In such specific and limited circumstances, would you agree that we must say to those young people that they must not gather there and that we should use the power to disperse groups and inform them that that is an inappropriate place for them to gather as it is causing distress to someone who cannot deal with the situation in a way that someone without that condition could? Do you see the logic of the power of dispersal in that sort of circumstance?
Yes, without a doubt. Like you, we would want to protect the person with autism who was being harassed in their own home.
If I were to say to you that the motive of the provision related to other vulnerable groups who might be more easily wound up or too frightened to negotiate with the group, would you understand why a power that prevented the group from returning and made it clear that they must not gather at that place was a rational one for the police to have?
Yes, but as I say, we did not form a strong opinion on the provision, which is why we did not write about it in our submission.
Your submission has three or four paragraphs on part 9 of the bill, which relates to parenting orders, and details your concern about youngsters who suffer from autism. The example that you gave related to the danger of criminalising parents for what might be an education problem.
I have yet to meet any parents of children with autism who would be unwilling to parent their children appropriately. However, I can understand why you would wish to have that wider provision for other vulnerable children and young people. Parents of children with autism are often crying out for any and all sources of support to improve their parenting and their caring for their children. I would certainly have concerns about parenting orders being applied. What we desperately do not want to see is our families being punished for having a disabled child.
I am not entirely clear why they would be punished. As I understand the bill and the explanatory notes, the test for a parenting order is when a parent is deemed to have been offered substantial support but has failed to accept it. The parenting order route would not be the first option.
The provisions talk about offering parents guidance or counselling. I am not sure whether that could be autism-specific. If not, it would be worthless, because the nature of the condition is that the parenting interventions required need to deal with the autism. Unless resources are available through provisions in the legislation to ensure that particular disabilities are covered by the guidance, counselling or support, the danger is that parents will be seen to be failing. What they need are appropriate early interventions and support to deal with the autism.
The explanatory notes state that no parenting order can be sought unless appropriate support has been made available but not taken up. That test makes this scenario quite different from the one that you mention in your submission.
If appropriate support is available, that might be a different matter; but we know that appropriate support for parents of children with autism is not available now. There are a number of examples of early intervention, one of which is called EarlyBird and is run by the National Autistic Society. We offer training and support to staff within local authorities, who can then work with families when the children are at a very early age to improve communication skills and behavioural aspects. We know of a number of local authorities in Scotland who do not have the money to run EarlyBird groups in Scotland. If that is the case now, my concern is that, once legislation is implemented, support will still not be there and we may find ourselves in a situation in which people are drawn into parenting orders.
It seems unlikely, but could parents who are autistic be subject to inappropriate parenting orders?
Absolutely. I do not know what the likelihood is, but it is a distinct possibility. There are parents who are affected by autistic spectrum disorders. The literal understanding of social rules and the rules of caring for children may mean that their parenting does not appear to be within the normative range of behaviour. Therefore, we could penalise individuals.
Does that have implications for the bill?
It might do. In our submission, we talk about improved understanding and awareness, which may help to allay some of the concerns.
On Scott Barrie's point, you mentioned services. Section 141 of the policy memorandum says:
I am not satisfied and the National Autistic Society is not satisfied that the provisions in the bill will make that support automatic. From existing systems such as the children's hearings system, we know that when a child is identified as having autism, the support is not there for them. I appreciate the point that the proposed legislation says that the support must be there, but legislation already exists that says that when a children's panel makes a disposal, the resources have to be there for that disposal to happen.
So you do not have confidence in the current system and it is difficult to have confidence in a future system.
Perhaps it would if it was piloted before it was put into legislation. However, to pilot it as part of the implementation of the legislation is not reassuring.
If you were satisfied that the support services were in place and that the parent had expressed their views, would there be circumstances in which a parenting order might be beneficial and helpful?
There might well be, in a small number of cases, if—and this is crucial—the support and resources were in place. I appreciate that the bill cannot determine what support will be in place and that is our principal concern. Because the legislation cannot make provision for the support to be in place, we would prefer that vulnerable parents and families were not drawn into it at this stage.
Is that a case for not having parenting orders? What if the motivation behind parenting orders was not to punish parents for not solving their youngster's truancy, for example, but to ensure that they were willing to participate, to come to the table and to talk about what they could do and to show evidence that they had at least tried? I have worked with families in which no one could get the youngster out of bed despite everyone's best endeavours. I have also worked with families who would not engage in the process—they did not respond to police letters or anything. If we put in the caveats that deal with autism, is it reasonable for us to expect families like that to come to the table and to engage in trying to solve the problems? We do not want them to be sent to jail because their child is a truant, but we want them to know that they have a responsibility to participate in considering solutions. Is that reasonable?
It is always reasonable to expect a parent to take responsibility for negotiating and working with others to support their child. The provisions are already there in existing measures and, to the best of my knowledge and that of my colleagues, I do not believe that there are parents of children with autism who refuse to engage.
No, but there are parents who cannot be brought to the table and the supervision order has to be put on the youngster rather than on the adult.
If the parenting order were about providing support for an adult with autistic spectrum disorder who is also a parent, that would be very welcome. From our reading of the bill, I was not clear that that would be a possibility. If a parenting order helped an adult in those circumstances, we would welcome that.
There is provision in the bill to extend electronic monitoring—or electronic tagging—to people under the age of 16. In general terms, is that a good or a bad idea? You have given a couple of examples of cases in which it seems that a young person's autistic spectrum disorder has not been taken cognisance of when they have been dealt with. Might there be scope under the bill for young people with autism to find themselves being tagged?
Yes. There is certainly scope for young people to be electronically tagged.
From your experience, is there no standard procedure to flag up to children's hearings or to the courts that a person has been diagnosed as suffering from autism? Is there nothing in place that flags that up automatically?
There is nothing that does that, unless the young person already has a diagnosis of which the social work department is aware, or the parents or the young person identify the matter to the reporter or to the children's hearing. If you are talking about mechanisms, I guess that those are the only ways in which the person's autism would come to light.
Should there be provision for that in the bill? If a child is referred to a hearing or to a court, surely there should be a background report that would say that the child suffers from autism and that that should be taken into consideration when they are being dealt with.
Yes. There are background reports for the children's hearings system. There should be background reports and one of the criteria should be that there is a compulsion to determine whether the person has special needs and whether they are affected by certain conditions.
As one of the co-conveners of the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder, I am aware of some of those issues and I have been asking other witnesses questions on the matter. I am pleased that Robert McKay is here today to enable the committee to concentrate in more detail on some of the issues, which are of great concern to parents and society.
For us, intent is the single most important issue. If the definition were to be rewritten to include an element of intent, that would be exceptionally reassuring to our members.
Other members have asked you about ASBOs. Your submission states:
Learning from mistakes is an issue for children, young people and indeed adults who are affected by autism. Many people with autism have an inability to generalise behaviour from one context to another. If a child with autism breaks the rules in a French class this morning, they will not know that they are not meant to repeat the behaviour in a history lesson this afternoon. They can understand the rule literally at that moment in time, but they cannot generalise it to other situations. That is why the issue of learning from mistakes is crucial.
ASBOs involve our saying to a person that their behaviour is not appropriate and that an order is being placed on them to change their behaviour. That is not an appropriate disposal in dealing with people with autism.
Yes. An antisocial behaviour order will not in itself change the behaviour of a person with autism.
I have put the following point to other witnesses during the past few weeks. The Scottish Executive says that it understands the concerns that have been expressed by people who work with children with disabilities and special needs and by the parents of such children. The Executive is confident that the bill ensures that young people's circumstances would be taken into account and it thinks that the children's hearings system would, in almost all cases, be the appropriate forum in which to discuss the best interests of the young person.
There is some comfort in the fact that there is awareness. We are reassured that the Executive is aware of the problem. As I mentioned earlier, there are problems with the current framework, in the children's hearings system and elsewhere, for the vulnerable children who are affected by autism. On that basis, we have concerns about the bill. We have not got things right with the current framework and adding in another piece of legislation will only muddy the waters. We must improve the level of support in the current system.
Finally, I want to press you slightly on what you said about electronic tagging being preferable to secure accommodation. Last week, I think, witnesses said that there was not much of a choice and that it was a false premise to say that there is a choice between electronic tagging and secure accommodation and that tagging is better. They said that secure accommodation is often the last resort and that taking a child into secure accommodation can often be in the interests of that child. I am curious about the matter.
I do not want to discuss individual cases, but that is an ideal example. Allowing a child to remain at home in a safe and consistent environment rather than placing the child in a secure unit would allow community-based support to be made available, if it existed, and would be preferable. I emphasise that consistency is crucial for people who are affected by autism. Such an approach would mean young people with autism getting community-based support.
In general, is electronic tagging appropriate for young people with autism?
The issue is about communication, how one would make a young person understand why they had to wear an electronic tag and what the consequences of wearing such a tag would be. A great deal of work would be required to support that young person through the process.
I want to understand your answer to that question and to a previous question that was asked about electronic monitoring. Am I right to assume that you are arguing that the support that you mentioned might make a difference rather than the tag itself?
Yes, if support was available. That is the caution that I would give.
Finally—to use a nice word that Elaine Smith used; we have not really learned what the word means in the committee so far—on your reservations, I would be reluctant to see ASBOs or electronic tagging being used against a person who displayed a condition. I do not see ASBOs and electronic tagging as a way of managing behaviour that is caused by autism. Am I right in thinking that your concern is not about ASBOs for under-16s or electronic tagging for the general population, but that young people might have such a disposal attached to them inappropriately as a result of their autism? Therefore, is the thrust of your evidence that you seek reassurances that people with autism would, in effect, be screened out of the system and that, if assurances were given about that, you would not be hostile to the provisions for other young people?
I should be clear. We are not hostile to the provisions in the bill as it stands; we are trying to be as constructive as we can be. Our prime and key concern is the definition of antisocial behaviour. We think that changing the definition would take many people with autism out of the system and allow them to be dealt with more appropriately outwith the system. That said, if young people are to be brought into the system, the issues that we have raised about parenting orders, antisocial behaviour orders and so on still come into play and we would still have concerns.
You are not going as far as to say that, as a result of such reservations and because issues must be looked out for, you could not imagine the tools in question being used elsewhere against other young people.
Absolutely. We recognise that the tools can and may well be used against or on behalf of other people.
You said that you would come back to the committee with further examples relating to a couple of issues. We look forward to hearing from you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Our second witness is Angela Yih, who is a policy officer from Age Concern Scotland. I appreciate your coming along and I hope that the fact that you are here on your own does not cause you additional difficulties. As I said to the previous witness, please let us know if you think that it is inappropriate for you to answer particular questions. If you want to expand in writing on anything that you say, we would be more than happy for you to do so.
We carried out consultation, but it was not easy for us to consult broadly our member groups, which, on a policy level, tend to be more interested in issues of community care, income benefits and health. However, when we speak to individual older people we find that they are interested in the subject. I notice that quite a lot of forums for the elderly responded to the consultation and I read many of their responses.
Are you suggesting that the consultation process amplified the problems inappropriately?
No. I am saying that the subject is difficult to deal with in one piece of legislation.
Would it be reasonable to say that people are good at describing the problem? That reflects my experience and gives the lie to the idea that the problem was got up by politicians. That is a separate issue from the questions of how such behaviour should be tackled and whether the provisions in the bill are appropriate. Your organisation and the groups to whom you speak do not dispute the fact that the problem is real and not imagined.
Older people perceive the problem as serious. The research that we and the police have conducted into older people and crime shows that even when crime statistics show that the level of crime has dropped, older people's fear of crime tends to increase. Our discussions with groups rarely centre on the detailed aspects of punitive measures; they tend to concern disappointment or a perception of a moral void in society, rather than insufficient powers to tackle the problems that people are causing. That is the tenor of our discussions. When we brought together a group of older and younger people in Edinburgh's city chambers, many of the older people said that they perceived a lack of discipline, moral values and family interaction. Much of that causes antisocial behaviour.
In your experience, does the general feeling of a moral void and a lack of discipline arise from anecdotal evidence or direct experience? Do people draw the conclusion that discipline is lacking because of what has happened to them?
Quite a lot of the older people to whom we spoke had not experienced antisocial behaviour, but had heard of it. To an extent, people's experience depends on the area in which they live. We are aware that the problems of vandalism, litter and abandoned properties are much more serious in some areas than in others. Depending on who one speaks to, what is perceived as antisocial behaviour can range from rudeness in the bus queue, jostling or pushing, rudeness in the supermarket and disruptive behaviour in libraries—which used to be places of absolute silence but now have children running around and playing games on the computer—to the shouting of abuse at vulnerable older people in housing estates by groups of young people, and the behaviour that the Executive must have had in mind when it decided to extend ASBOs to children under 16.
People in my constituency have experienced a range of difficulties, but no one has ever come to me to complain about folk being noisy in the library; I will have to watch that space.
In your submission—under the heading, "The causes"—you say:
That was not my opinion; it was a general feeling. The discussion that I mentioned was about younger people and how they can become disaffected with society. It centred on the idea that schools and parents were not seen to exercise the sort of discipline that older people were used to in the past. We discussed why the situation was so different today. Some older people said that they were poor and came from deprived backgrounds, but that that was not a cause of antisocial behaviour.
Do you think that the people who were involved in your discussion were saying that the change in the fabric of society over recent years is part of the underlying cause of antisocial behaviour?
During the discussion day, the older people said that they had observed antisocial behaviour such as buses being vandalised, which the younger people also described. It was said that that was because the kids had nothing else to do. We are not saying that advertising is the root cause, but the general tenor of the discussion on the subject was that people today—not just very young people—seem to be less easily satisfied.
The subject of definitions of antisocial behaviour has been introduced, but I want to develop it a little further.
I thought about that only when I listened to Robert McKay and read Shelter's response, because they took two different angles. Anything that I might say would be a personal opinion, so I should perhaps not say anything. The older people in our member groups were not hooked up on discussing the definition of antisocial behaviour. They knew what such behaviour was to them and the effect that it had on them. They had their own understanding of it.
Is it a fair comment to say that antisocial behaviour is considered differently in different parts of the country? The issues that relate to a sheltered housing complex where 100 kids gather every night at the front door are different from the issues that might arise in a relatively rural setting, for example, although people might still regard both as antisocial behaviour under the definition in the bill. Is that your organisation's experience?
Yes. I was trying to say the same thing earlier. We are discussing behaviour. We have a definition of antisocial behaviour elsewhere in housing legislation. For example, housing managers in the social rented sector have a definition for antisocial behaviour of tenants.
Are you aware of any ways in which Age Concern and local old people's organisations have been able to get involved in work to prevent or tackle antisocial behaviour or to help victims of antisocial behaviour?
We have not been made aware of any such projects through our member groups. Having spoken to organisations that have developed projects to help families that may be, or have been, subject to antisocial behaviour—or which may even have participated in such behaviour—we know that, if local projects work, they do so because they bring together different age groups. There can be difficulties if people have been bullied or harassed or intimidated—organisations such as Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending have examples of that—but bringing together different age groups is a positive way forward.
You have produced an interesting paper based on the meeting that took place between older people and younger people, which I managed to attend for a short while. Some very good points were raised in that paper. To expand on your last point, about mediation, what do you think the older people whom you represent believe to be the solutions for dealing with antisocial behaviour? You described the perception of a moral vacuum in society. Do you think that older people have an idea of how to fill that vacuum? Have they come up with ideas about how to help prevent or tackle antisocial behaviour?
I have not heard any suggestions as far as the moral vacuum is concerned. It came out from our research into crime and from our elder abuse project that most older people, as well as other age groups, want more police on the streets. I am sure that you will have heard that from both individuals and communities. It seems that people are asking for more community police—that is, more police with whom the community is familiar. That would engender trust within the community and between the community and the police. That trust is lacking nowadays in Scottish society, or at least it seems to be, because of the lack of resources and of police time.
Will you elaborate on your suggestion about mediation? How do you think older people would envisage mediation happening? If they are sitting in their house being terrorised, and if there is a group of youngsters doing the terrorising, how could the two groups be brought together to deal with the problem at an early stage?
It is obvious that mediation will work only if the parties are willing to discuss the issues. I have heard anecdotal evidence about things working in relation to a lower level of antisocial behaviour, for example noise nuisance, which might be coming about because of ignorance or poor sound insulation. It could be to do with children making a noise, because they have to. Noisy children are not a statutory nuisance, but they are certainly a nuisance to many older people.
Often, a problem has been identified but the police are not around to deal with it. What do you think that the people whom you represent would want the police to do about it if they were there? There is a dichotomy. Old people might want young people to be moved on, but young people's organisations are telling us that the police already have the power to move on young people but do not do so because they say that they have the right to be on the streets.
That raises an interesting point. The reason why older people feel that having more community police on the streets would lead to the creation of a safer environment is the same as the reason why young people think that. There would be less intimidating or annoying behaviour if there were more police around. The bulk of the population pay attention to the police and will do as they are told. Not all young people will swear at the police if they are told to stop doing what they are doing. Usually, they run off and go somewhere else.
How do you get those bodies to exercise the powers, in that case?
Have you spoken to the organisations that are not exercising the powers, such as those local authorities that you do not believe are using ASBOs appropriately?
We will come to the dispersal of groups in a minute.
The issue of a greater police presence relates to the fear of crime in general, which is much wider than the question of how to deal with groups. The fear of crime is a big issue for older people, even though they might not have been victims of crime. The media is quite determined to tell them what happened to an old person who was the victim of a violent or horrific crime.
So, your membership has said that the key to the issue is young people being busy in activities elsewhere, rather than hanging about.
Antisocial behaviour is much more than young people hanging about in groups. However, someone might have feelings of fear and intimidation when they see a group of younger people looking as though they have nothing to do and as though they might get up to something harmful. When older people know the young people, there is no problem.
Despite saying that older people's fears of crime are increasing, the solutions that you offer on page 2 of your written submission focus on the preventive and community solutions that you have discussed. Does your organisation have a view on the proposal to extend antisocial behaviour orders to children who are aged 12 to 15?
Our members have not expressed a view on that. The only evidence that I can give you is evidence from the day on which we got the groups together. The older people did not express the opinion that that would improve matters. They saw that serious problems with children—people under the age of 16—have wider implications. The children's hearings system was cited as an excellent measure that is particular to Scotland and that we do not want to lose. We do not want to go down the road of criminal or legal responses, but should strengthen the children's hearings system and perhaps train more older people to sit on the panels.
That was not quite what Stewart Stevenson and I heard in Lossiemouth. What we heard was, "Hang 'em and flog 'em."
Older people are not a homogeneous group. I am an older person and you are an older person. Other older people are in their 70s and 80s. There are affluent older people, well-educated older people, poorer older people and older people with learning difficulties. We cannot get a single response from older people.
That is the benefit of our wide-ranging experience and the fact that we have been out to meet groups.
That was the general view of the people to whom we spoke on that day. However, I have spoken to older people who would be quite happy to see lots of people locked up in a secure unit. The problem is that many members of the public want a simple remedy, whereas people who are familiar with the children's hearings system, the social work department and educational psychologists, who know the problems of poorer or dysfunctional families and disruptive children, know that the problem cannot be solved by taking more punitive measures. If it could, the solution would be simple and we would welcome more legislation.
Are there any specific measures in the bill that Age Concern welcomes as a means of addressing antisocial behaviour in the younger age group?
The necessity for an antisocial behaviour strategy to be drawn up by the police and the local authority seems a positive step forward. We welcome the discussion about antisocial behaviour. We also welcome the Executive's recognition that we, as a society, must tackle it and that we need a range of measures to do so, as has been suggested. I cannot say that our organisation has reached a consensus of opinion as to whether we welcome or dismiss any of those measures.
Before I move on to address the dispersal powers, convener, I want to touch on some of the intergenerational issues. I want to share a conversation that I had with a group of older people, the first half of which was dominated by reflections on how serious a problem antisocial behaviour is and how it impacts on their lives. The second half of the conversation was characterised by reminiscences about how all of them did the same thing in their day. Was that viewpoint reflected in the discussion that you held, which you told us about earlier? Is that a fair description of older peoples' views?
No. That is another example of the range of discussions that can be held. On that day, nothing like that was said. There was no talk of those older people doing similar things, because they had not. We have held discussions with one of our member groups, however, in which one member who had been in care talked about the problems of children in care. He could understand a range of issues that other older people perhaps do not understand.
What I am driving at is whether the problem has changed or worsened over the years or whether people are responding and reacting to it differently.
That is a very difficult question for us to answer. Without any hard research evidence, my instinct tells me that I regularly hear older people saying that things were better. That said, some of those older people are not over 60; they are 40.
I will move on to address the dispersal powers. You touched on the issue earlier. Would the power to designate an area where the police can disperse groups of two or more people and make it an offence for them to return be a useful addition to police powers? One of the criticisms of the provision is that, if the group cannot meet in the designated area, they will go somewhere else. Will the provision simply move the problem around or will it help to solve it?
As I understand the provision—please correct me if I am wrong—the bill introduces a power to designate an area where two or more people cannot congregate.
That is correct.
At the moment, the police can disperse a group of people who are loitering or causing a problem. My first response is that two or more people would seem to be a strange description of a group. If an area is designated would the provision include me and a friend?
I think that if you and a friend were in an area that had been designated it would be down to the individual officer to decide whether the dispersal power should be exercised. The provision gives the police the ability to use the power as a positive step. It can be used to change antisocial behaviour into better behaviour.
Our main fear would be where the group would go. Would a different area have to be designated every so often? Would the police view it as feasible or practical to use the power at all? There needs to be more discussion about the power.
The police will be required to demonstrate that there is a persistent problem in order to designate an area, but not to demonstrate particular forms of behaviour before dispersing people. Presence alone will be sufficient. It has been suggested that there should be a link between exercising the power and the availability of facilities or other provision. In other words, if you designate an area where people are not allowed to be, you have to demonstrate that there is somewhere where they are allowed to be and where they are welcome. How would that change the situation?
It will not change the situation until we address the fact that the facilities do not exist in the community in the first place. Until we address the lack of affordable and accessible leisure facilities, we cannot expect the police to solve the problems by moving people somewhere else.
What should those facilities be?
Are we talking about younger people? The focus seems to be on them.
Technically, I suppose we are talking about groups. The perception seems to be that young people are being tagged as the problem.
Younger people have reported to us that some areas have no youth clubs at all—I know that they are not necessarily always called youth clubs. In rural areas and smaller towns there are certain facilities for young people, but they have to travel long distances to them. It is the same issue for many older people: there is a lack of affordable and available transport and facilities to take them safely and securely to a place.
I will describe a circumstance where a dispersal power could be used and you can tell me whether it is reasonable.
That seems reasonable on the face of it. However, before we reach that stage, we need to ask a million questions about what has been done to address the problem. For example, I would want the housing managers in the sheltered housing complex, the families of the children involved and so on to try to tackle the problem first. Moreover, do we simply move the youngsters on so that they can harass another group of people?
That is a separate issue. These measures would be taken because it had been demonstrated that the problem had reached a certain level of persistence over time and that young people were even travelling to that place to meet others from a wider area. For example, they would not be using the free swimming facilities down the road, but would choose instead to gather in that area. In those circumstances, is it understandable or reasonable for such a power at least to be considered?
Yes, it should be considered, particularly if the older people suggested it.
And on a balance of needs, it would then be reasonable to enforce that power. In other words, the needs and rights of youngsters to gather in a certain place would have to be balanced against the needs and rights of people to be able to sit in their living rooms or to go out to a club and come back home.
Is there any evidence of groups of 30 or 40 young people harassing someone in a sheltered housing complex? I have certainly had inquiries about people being intimidated by smaller groups of children.
Why do you think that someone would advocate a policy to meet a need that has never been articulated? Why would anyone propose a power in a bill to address the scenario that I have just described if it were only a figment of someone's imagination?
Oh, no. I am not suggesting that it is a figment of someone's imagination; it is just that you have described a very extreme scenario. As I said, I have evidence of incidents involving a lower level of annoyance. For example, younger children might be disrupting older people's peace of mind by playing and making noise. To deal with such situations, we need to bring in social measures and housing management skills.
Well, a free swimming class might be a reasonable start.
Yes, if we had found no other way of addressing the fears of bullied and harassed older people. It would seem to be a last resort.
But it would be a reasonable last resort.
With such a measure, we would be designating no-go areas for groups. That might temporarily solve the problem in one area. However, I cannot say that Age Concern Scotland has a strong view that the measure should not be introduced. It would seem to be reasonable if we had tried everything else.
But it would happen in the context of other measures. After all, the police would not just go and tell youngsters that they could not be in a certain area without reflecting on the broader picture and where they might disperse to.
Yes, if no other measures are available, but I would have thought that the police would already have powers to deal with such a situation, although I do not want—
I would have thought that too, but it is my experience that they have not.
I will give you an example, Angela, although the bill is too late to deal with the situation, because it has resolved itself. In my constituency, a set of steps leads from a public footpath to a sheltered housing complex. For about two and a half years, the elderly people and the warden were annoyed and harassed by young people congregating at those steps every night. They were annoyed by the noise and had to get up in the morning and clean the steps of litter and broken glass. The police were involved: when they came, the young people would go away but would come back when the police left, and it is not possible to instruct a police officer to sit on the stairs all night. The local councillor also got involved, went out and spoke to the young people and got the community education department involved. Youth workers went out and tried to encourage the young people to come to the community education centre, which had a youth club two nights a week and the opportunity to play badminton and five-a-side football at other times. That centre was the same distance from where the problem occurred as we are from Edinburgh city chambers.
Yes, and I can see why the older people would have been relieved by and welcomed the power. However, as an individual, I would have wondered what would happen next and where the young people would go, although the problem might have been solved for one group in society. The issues in that situation are to do with young people's lack of understanding of the issues that affect older people, who are vulnerable and need peace and quiet. I accept that, in such a situation, the power of dispersal would be used as a last resort and that everything else would have been tried.
Do you have evidence of the situation that I described, which is not one of a lack of understanding about older people's needs for peace and quiet, but a more deliberate strategy than that? I cannot think of any young person whom I know who does not work out that, if they chap somebody's door or window, ring their bell or buzz their buzzer at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night, they get a reaction. I can almost more easily understand somebody breaking into somebody's house and stealing something because they desperately need the money as they have a drugs problem, but I do not understand why young people chap somebody's door at 10 o'clock. I think that most young people who do that do it to get a deliberate response. It is not that they do not understand that elderly people do not like their window being chapped at 10 o'clock—they certainly understand that—but the sport has become getting a reaction to it. Do you have examples of people talking about that kind of experience?
Yes, we have had complaints from people about unruly children running into their gardens and messing them up or, as you said, ringing the bell and harassing older people just because they are older people, which definitely happens. As I said, we have an elder abuse project, and we get lots of inquiries about that sort of antisocial behaviour, as well as the other sorts of elder abuse crime, financial abuse and neglect. I am not saying that all problems that younger children cause are down to a lack of understanding, but they often are, and intergenerational work is important.
I am interested in your conference. How many people were at it and were they drawn from throughout Scotland?
There were about six older people and 12 younger people and we mixed the groups up.
Where were those people drawn from?
They were drawn from rural areas and cities.
Did your organisation identify the people, or did they identify themselves?
We wrote to our individual members, rather than to our groups. Many of our groups, which are totally independent from us although they use our name, had already responded to the consultation. We wrote to individual members to allow them to speak for themselves.
Does Age Concern Scotland have any views on part 9 of the bill, on parenting orders? Your submission states that the older people who attended your consultation event felt that, in general, parents should be held more accountable for their children's actions. Do you have any views on the specific proposal in the bill?
The older people to whom we spoke identified lack of parental control as a serious problem. I am not familiar with the present system of dealing with families, but there will be extreme cases in which parents simply cannot cope with their children and need support. The bill slightly amends the proposal that went out for consultation, in that parenting orders will be used only if parents refuse to accept support that is offered to them, which is more sensible than the original proposal.
One of the grounds of referral to a children's hearing is that the child is beyond parental control. In fact, that ground has existed since the system was established. Parenting orders are aimed at the minority of parents who are unwilling to accept the support and advice that are offered to them. With the previous witness, we explored the issue of the range of services that should be made available before such an order is sought. However, for the minority of parents who have not accepted advice and help, the parenting order will put responsibility where it is due, rather than place a supervision requirement on the child, which is the only alternative that hearings have at present. You seemed to say that Age Concern Scotland sees merit in the measure and supports its use in those circumstances.
We support it as long as proper measures are put in place to deal with situations in which parents breach an order. What will happen then? The worry is that we may criminalise parents.
I assume, although I am not 100 per cent sure, that parenting orders will apply to people who have guardianship of children. For example, research last year highlighted that around 50,000 children in Scotland—I cannot be sure of the exact figure—are looked after by people such as grandparents because of social problems in the family or for other reasons. Have your members considered the point that parenting orders may be given to older people who are guardians, such as grandparents? Anecdotally, many older people have a suspicion of what they see as social services. For example, they may not claim benefits that they are due because they do not want to be seen to be dependent on those services. Older people who are not a child's parents might end up being fined.
They have not said that they have. The scenario that you portray is frightening, but we need assurances that there is support for people who are in difficulties. It would be dreadful if grandparents or older people were criminalised in some way because they were unable to cope with children who exhibit problem behaviour. It is because of the lack of resources in social work departments, and even in educational psychology in schools, and because of the low number of social workers who are able to monitor what is happening in society that we might face those extreme scenarios. That is not why the bill was introduced.
Would you accept parenting orders if they did not punish parents for being unable to get their youngster to school, but addressed their reluctance to engage in the process of supporting their child in going to school? An area social worker told me that he could see the argument for what he called a "huv-tae" case, which would get someone into the room to start talking, rather than have them not respond at all. Parenting orders would not necessarily be simply punitive; they could make people support their children and accept their responsibilities, rather than jump in saying, "This is your fault and we're going to punish you," which is what some provisions in the system do at the moment. The attendance system can be highly punitive because it merely makes the connection between the person and the truancy. A parenting order is about trying to get people to co-operate. If that were the way in which the orders were presented, would you find that reasonable?
That sounds reasonable to me. I assume that older people would also see it as reasonable. However, it will be interesting to wait for the results of the pilot projects.
My question is about the bill's proposals for extending electronic tagging to people under 16. From experience, would older people believe that that is a valid sanction? Do they believe that it would benefit society and the individuals who might be tagged?
That proposal seems to be quite extreme; most people to whom we spoke think that electronic tagging is extreme. I do not know enough about the subject to comment in detail, but when we spoke to older people, concerns were expressed.
I do not recall reading that in your submission. Did you say that to us or to the Executive?
We put that in our response to the Executive's original consultation.
Stewart Stevenson mentioned problems with definitions in relation to the dispersal of groups from a place that had been made a no-go area. You asked about that earlier. Do you have concerns that intent will not be taken into account? For example, let us consider the scenario of a post office that is next to an off-licence that has been deemed a no-go area for groups because large groups have caused problems by gathering there. The bill does not say whether the groups that may be dispersed are groups of youngsters or groups of older people. This may be a theoretical example, but I cite it because it brings us back to the issue of intent. Could a younger person decide that a group of older people who were gathered there was causing, or was likely to cause, nuisance or annoyance? The younger person might do that just to noise them up.
You raise an interesting point. Legislation must be precise. The Executive's policy memorandum is clear about why the measures have been introduced, about how they will be used and about what mechanisms are expected to be used, but once the legislation is in place, those powers may be abused. We need to be careful about that when we introduce legislation.
Finally, your written submission mentions the meeting between older people and younger people. Could a number of the issues perhaps be resolved by meetings and discussion to promote understanding and mutual respect?
As I said at the beginning, a bill that has been introduced to deal with antisocial behaviour must deal with a vast range of issues. On the one hand, some of our suggestions would work for low-level antisocial behaviour and indifference or neglect. On the other hand, the bill has been introduced to target the much more serious problems that Johann Lamont mentioned. That may be where the Executive and the legal team need to look quite carefully at what will go into the final bill. Those two areas could easily become confused.
I want to pick up the point about persistent problems. If a group was persistently drinking in the street, smashing bottles, swearing, intimidating people as they went past and threatening youngsters who were trying to go about their business, it would be reasonable in such circumstances to challenge that behaviour. The dispersal measures would be taken because the behaviour was persistent and extremely difficult. They would not be used simply because someone was a kind of awkward cuss, as you have characterised the issue.
I accept your point entirely. Perhaps I have not been strong enough in agreeing that that sort of behaviour is a dreadful indictment of our society. Older people suffer disproportionately from being unable to move to areas where they would like to be and where they feel safe.
What the people whom I mentioned identified was that they had chosen to live in their community, but that that choice had been destroyed by the community's inability to address the problems that made it more vulnerable than it had previously been. The problem was not that there were no houses elsewhere to which those people could go, but that the area in which they had chosen to stay had been affected by those problems.
The issue is a serious housing management issue, as well as a police issue.
Unless there are any final questions, I thank Angela Yih—she almost looks as if she is in the spotlight because of the way in which the sun is shining. I appreciate that giving evidence is always slightly more difficult when one is alone before the committee, but we appreciate the time that you have taken. If you want to develop any issues further with us, we would be delighted to hear from you.
Meeting continued in private until 12:55.