Official Report 338KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the third meeting in 2004 of the Communities Committee. We continue with our stage 1 consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Our first witnesses are Douglas Keil, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, and David Strang, the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway police, who is representing the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
I will begin by responding on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. We feel that a full consultation process was carried out. The original consultation document, "Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-social Behaviour", was widely circulated. I chair the ACPOS general policing standing committee. The consultation paper was circulated to all eight police forces in Scotland and each force put together a response. The ACPOS response was therefore the result of a consultation that took place right across the eight forces in Scotland. We felt that we had an opportunity to submit our views on the measures that were proposed in the consultation paper.
Would you say that there was a consensus view in your organisation?
I am sure that, on any such issue, one will get a variety of views. The overwhelming view was that we supported the proposals, perhaps understandably, given the wide range of measures that the bill contains. The provisions range from the preventive, including working with partnerships to build antisocial behaviour strategies and to try to prevent antisocial behaviour from occurring in the first place, to measures such as antisocial behaviour orders and parenting orders, right through to what might be seen as the harsher enforcement end of the strategy.
Do you accept that your capacity to police the problems in communities depends on whether the communities feel involved or have been intimidated out of feeling involved? Does the way in which things are dealt with in the criminal justice system after the police have dealt with them have an impact on policing?
Those factors undoubtedly affect policing. It is helpful to be involved with communities, their representatives and other organisations. The ethos behind community planning is to consider the problems in an area and to ask how the local authority and the police force can work together to solve them. We are considering the causes and not simply dealing with the symptoms. The police have to commit to that process. We regard working with others as helpful.
But your capacity to police will be affected by the level of the difficulties in a community, if those difficulties inhibit the community in working with you.
The capacity to police is always a difficult issue. In some ways, demand is infinite: however much we do, there is always more that the public would want us to do.
That is not the point that I am trying to get at. In communities where a serious problem has emerged that affects people's ability to be involved, there will be a direct impact on your ability to police. What police officers do when going into a particular area will be different if the community is already so intimidated that it cannot help them.
I suppose so, in extreme cases. Policing relies hugely on the co-operation of the public. The fact that the vast majority of people are law abiding enables us to live as we do. However, if the police are going to solve crimes, and deal with drug problems and antisocial behaviour, we need to have information and intelligence from the public. Our intelligence-led approach is about gathering information. Some of that will be gathered directly by police officers, but some will be information that comes from members of the public, either anonymously through Crimestoppers or directly through letters or complaints.
If the bulk of the information that you receive comes anonymously rather than having a name attached to it, that affects your ability to police. It changes the nature of your intelligence-led approach and your ability to act on the information.
It might make things more difficult. We might have to look at other ways of getting evidence—for instance, installing a temporary closed-circuit television system. I understand people's reluctance to be witnesses in court against someone who lives nearby, because they would clearly fear repercussions.
I want to answer the first part of your question, convener. The Scottish Police Federation's national committee comprises 30 officers. From each force, we have at least one officer from each of the three ranks that we represent—there is at least a constable, a sergeant and an inspector or chief inspector from each of the eight forces in Scotland. In any consultation, I write to each of those officers and send them the consultation paper. Those national representatives then send that paper out to their local representatives. It depends on the subject matter but, generally, the views of around 150 police officers are sought on the details of any proposals. That is what I did in July last year. Responses are collated locally, compiled from each of the eight forces and sent to me. That becomes the Scottish Police Federation's evidence.
Notwithstanding your consultation, do you accept that there are community police officers at constable and sergeant level who are in favour of the power?
I represent more than 15,000 police officers.
What proportion of the work force is that?
It is 98 per cent. I am quite sure that a number of officers will think that more powers would be useful. I do not doubt that ministers and MSPs have spoken to police officers who have said that they could use extra powers. If people do not see the detail and complexity of the power as set out in the bill, the simple question whether they would like more powers is bound to receive a yes answer. I want to impress on you the point that, in the consultation exercise, I ensured that people knew the detail and saw precisely how bureaucratic it would be to set up a designated area and how ineffective the proposed dispersal power would be, given existing law. Like many other agencies, we have taken the view that there would be no advantage in having the proposed power of dispersal.
So a problem for your organisation is the complicated way in which the power is set out in the bill.
The power is complex, but what we are saying is that we do not think that it adds anything to existing law.
If we reinforced through legislation the power that you claim you already have in a simple form and said that it was an operational matter for the police to exercise the power to disperse and that the bill was simply underlining that power, would your organisation find that acceptable?
I cannot think of an amendment to current legislation that would add anything.
We would simply be restating the law.
Why would you want to restate it?
Well, why not?
Do you mean that you would be publicising it?
If there was a dispute about whether you had the power, we could make it absolutely clear that you did and we could take out all the bureaucratic bits. Would the police then be in favour of the power?
We would be in favour of anything that made our job easier and solved the problem, but we do not think that there is a legislative solution to that. We can have as much legislation on the statute book as we like, but unless we have police officers to deal with the problem, there is little point in that legislation. After carrying out a close examination of part 3 of the bill, we do not think that it adds anything to the current common-law offence of breach of the peace or the statutory powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which together have the situation covered. In our view, the issue is that we do not always have the resources to deal with such problems.
I refer back to the consultation; I am sure that we will return to the power of dispersal. Douglas, you explained how in the consultation process you did over and above what you would usually do, by consulting a further 20 operational officers on the beat. Were the people who responded to your consultation involved in the local consultation process that the Executive carried out and in which MSPs were involved in their constituencies in the summer? Did you get a purely professional opinion on the bill?
I do not know whether the individuals to whom I spoke in that add-on consultation had been involved in the consultation process before. Several of them had been consulted by the local representatives of the federation, but there is no question but that, on that particular day, we got right down to street level and the officers who work community beats in the four main cities in Scotland.
Do those views represent a professional, operational viewpoint, rather than the community cops who are on the beat reflecting what the people in their communities think?
I did not ask community beat officers to reflect the views of the people whom they police; I asked for their opinion.
Good morning, gentlemen. I want to deal at no great length with definitions. Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland says pithily:
In my view, the definition is broad enough to encompass what people would consider antisocial behaviour resulting in some sort of a legal response. Some people think that smoking cigarettes is antisocial, but I do not think that they would want the police to get involved. We could have a huge debate on what it means to be civil to one's neighbour and what constitutes thoughtlessness, unhelpfulness or antisocial behaviour towards those around us. However, in relation to the sort of behaviour that would ultimately warrant the intervention of the law, the causing of alarm or distress is a high enough threshold—we can say that such behaviour is significant and would warrant the intervention of the law. The definition is not so wide as to be all encompassing and cover everything that someone might, perhaps unreasonably, think was antisocial.
Evidence from the National Autistic Society Scotland suggests that the definition might needlessly cover people who, because of their condition, which is developmental, are not knowingly causing alarm or distress. The NAS is arguing for the definition to reflect, in some appropriate way, the fact that the person has to know that they are causing distress. How would you feel about that?
I would refer to the common sense and discretion of the police officers in dealing with people who are in distress. We often deal with people who behave strangely for one reason or another and not all of them are committing criminal offences. It is true that the police are the source of first and last resource. If there is some incident or scene and a person is in distress but people do not know whom else to call, they immediately call the police. Police officers are used to turning up at an incident or to dealing with a person and having to assess whether they have a medical condition or are drunk or are behaving in a disorderly manner that requires the force of the law. That is the comfort that I would offer to those who are concerned about the situation. Police officers would not automatically decide only from someone's behaviour that that person should be arrested for disorderly behaviour, for example. We would investigate the position and respond accordingly.
So, in considering the appropriate response, police practice would include an assessment of whether the person who was causing alarm or distress knew that they were doing so.
Yes. A police officer must always decide how they will respond to such an incident. Even if someone were acting in a way that fell within the bill's definition of antisocial behaviour, a police officer would not be obliged to arrest the person. The police officer could deal with the person by giving them a warning or by telling them not to do it again and sending them on their way. Police officers have a wide range of intelligent responses to that sort of behaviour.
I invite Douglas Keil to respond on the same general ground.
I agree with all of that. Antisocial behaviour is extremely difficult to define. It strikes me that the common-law definition of breach of the peace is similar. However, I do not have suggestions for improving the definition of antisocial behaviour. Robert McKay's evidence raised an important point because, as Mr Strang said, within the limitations of our training we do our level best to establish what causes behaviour that disturbs others.
Is that a suggestion that there may be scope for further and more focused training?
We have taken that view previously, particularly some years ago when care in the community was being introduced. Many people who would otherwise have been in hospitals started to live in the community, which caused us some concern, because we are not medically trained. To be fair to the police service, we have improved. However, I am still asked now and again whether we are adequately trained to deal with people who have mental health problems.
Just to take that point slightly further, many concerns have been raised about equal opportunities issues, in particular the possibility of children with special needs being subject to ASBOs. Mr Strang said that police officers' common sense and discretion would come into play. However, that would rely on judgment. I get the feeling from the witnesses from whom we have heard that they would much prefer the law to be clearer. For example, the definition of antisocial behaviour could be that someone acts with the intention to cause alarm and distress. Given the evidence that the committee has taken, we will obviously have to consider that issue at a later date. Do either of the witnesses have concerns about the inclusion of the word "intent" in the definition of antisocial behaviour? Would that concern you?
On your first point, I understand that people want clarity; it is only fair that the population should know what does and does not constitute an offence—that is the purpose of having laws that state what is and what is not an offence. However, I would not like us to get to the position where there has to be an automatic response to particular behaviour that does not allow for police discretion and the exercise of judgment and common sense. The strength of our policing in this country is that police officers use their discretion. Of course, that means that there is a variety of possible decisions, but I regard that as a strength rather than a weakness.
Might proving intent be a factor only once the case was referred to a court or to a children's panel, for example? That would mean that the bill did not have to deal with intent. If intent were included in the bill, would that in fact cause you problems in carrying out your duties?
I think that there would be difficulties, as I have described, with the inclusion of intent. I want to reassure you, however. If your concern is that children with learning disabilities will end up in court on an antisocial behaviour charge, I have to say that I think that that scenario is very unlikely. As I said, we look at the whole incident and at behaviour in the round. If someone clearly has learning difficulties and special needs, they will be dealt with appropriately. It would not be appropriate for such a person to be charged with a criminal offence and I very much doubt that the procurator fiscal would proceed with such a case in any event.
The Executive says that it is confident that the bill will not discriminate against any groups. Do you think that its confidence on that matter is justified?
Yes, I absolutely agree with that.
We have spoken about the usefulness of intelligence to you in carrying out your job. I know from speaking to the police in my area that they gain from exchanging information where that is appropriate and allowable under the current regime. Some measures in the bill would make it easier for bodies to share information. What is your experience of information sharing? Do you feel that we need stronger measures, or does the bill go far enough?
Are you referring to the strength of measures right across the bill?
I am asking in general about the police service, social work and housing services and other organisations or public bodies sharing information.
Partnership working, which is probably what we are referring to, has been growing at a tremendous rate recently and it is most definitely a good thing. Apart from part 3, there is nothing in the bill that we would take issue with. There are one or two fine details that we would query. For example, I have asked before why only the police and the local authority, and not some of the other public agencies, have to sign up to the antisocial behaviour strategy, but that is a detail. The clear intention is that there should be an exchange of information and I am quite content with how the bill tackles that.
Cathie Craigie is absolutely right to say that we rely on information and intelligence coming in from the public. However, if we are to solve antisocial behaviour problems in communities, the public agencies clearly need to share information, too. Mr Keil talked about partnership working. Information on individuals or families is held by the police and by the housing, education, social work and fiscal services. There is now much more of a culture of sharing such information, particularly in relation to child protection issues. At the United Kingdom level, a huge spotlight has been put on the sharing of information between agencies and on the misunderstandings about the restrictions that data protection legislation imposes. There is still some way to go on that but, if we are to make an impact on antisocial behaviour, it is essential to encourage information sharing between public agencies.
We have heard evidence—and I know from speaking to MSP colleagues that the problem is not unique to my constituency—that police can encounter difficulties in trying to get information on private landlords. We know that antisocial behaviour bridges all housing tenures, but I have been advised, and our evidence has suggested, that police are having particular difficulty in identifying private landlords—when there is a problem in a close or a street, it can be difficult to identify the landlord of a private rented property. One of the bill's proposals is that, in designated areas, private landlords would be required to be registered in some way. Do you have any views on that? Do you see the identification of private landlords as another important tool in the box that you use to tackle antisocial behaviour?
I heard the evidence from the operational police officers from Cumbernauld who attended a previous meeting of the committee, at which that point was addressed. However, in the federation's consultation exercise, the matter was not raised as an issue on which we would have strong views.
When you consulted your members on the bill, did not the point about private landlords arise in the views from any of the cities?
Not in the initial consultation exercise. The issue that you raise about private landlords is not one that we have taken a view on.
It is helpful if we can identify private landlords, but I do not have a view on whether there is sufficient provision for that in the bill.
On information sharing, do police officers feel that they cannot be proactive in providing information locally? If police officers have been called to premises on a number of occasions because of antisocial behaviour, there is clearly an issue about the way in which the landlord maintains the property. There might be a strong case for using an antisocial behaviour order, if the police have the information, but the matter may not have gone to the housing department or anyone else. Do you see it as the role of police officers to deal with such issues actively, when they have the information, by going and asking people to respond, instead of waiting for somebody to ask the question? I understand that you cannot give the information but that, if somebody asks, you can confirm that there has been an incident.
You raise an important point. Local practice varies according to what has been negotiated locally. The strength of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill is in the development of an antisocial behaviour strategy. Part of that strategy will be protocols about information sharing and how one goes about calling a case conference for a specific locality. The bill will put that on a much more formal and consistent footing across either a force area or the country.
I have one more question supplementary to Cathie Craigie's question, specifically about joint working in health. In the Highlands and Islands, in cases of attempted suicide, there have been particular problems in getting social workers, mental health officers or community psychiatric nurses. Are you satisfied that the police are getting the necessary support from mental health services, psychiatric services and police surgeons?
I cannot answer that question specifically, as I do not know the circumstances to which you refer.
What is the situation generally throughout Scotland?
Generally, we get that support. We work closely with health services. As I said earlier, we often have to deal with people with medical conditions that are separate from criminal activity, and every police force has police surgeons who are very much involved in dealing with the people whom we take into custody. However, I reserve comment on the specific situation that you are talking about, in the Highlands and Islands.
My question was about psychiatric services in general. Do you get the support that you need?
There are occasions when there is an unfortunate or perhaps unacceptable delay. I would not want you to take my answer to mean that there are no problems, and that it would not be helpful if more resources were put in. That issue has not been raised. If the committee wanted more detailed information, I would be happy to do some research around the forces to find out the extent of the provision.
There are occasionally specific incidents where shortcomings are exposed, but I have no information to suggest that there is a general problem.
The committee has received and heard evidence suggesting that in some communities there is a perception that the police do not hold antisocial behaviour as a high priority. Even when contact is made with the police it is often felt that the police do not take the problem seriously enough, or that it takes quite a long time for the police to respond. In fact, in some communities, particularly in Edinburgh, people said that they did not bother phoning the police because it is a waste of their time and the police's time. What is your response to that?
I am not in the least surprised that you have heard that—I have heard it too. If what people perceive as antisocial behaviour is happening and they call the police, then the police take 10 minutes to arrive, by which time it has all moved on and the police cannot do anything, and people are unwilling to come forward with evidence, I can understand communities' frustration. I can also understand police officers when they say that, when they turned up, nobody was committing an offence and nobody was willing to give evidence about what had happened. There is a sense of frustration.
The implementation of the bill will require you to make antisocial behaviour a greater priority than it is at present. There is not a penny for the police in the financial memorandum, and, according to the SPF's submission, there has been a 1.5 per cent increase in police numbers in six years, although the police also have extra duties, from those related to the European convention on human rights to family liaison. You say that you have too few officers and that antisocial behaviour is not a priority. How can you possibly implement what the Parliament is expecting of you?
I do not accept the premise that antisocial behaviour is a low priority. Community policing involves being responsive to the concerns of communities. We recognise fully that antisocial behaviour is a real concern in communities. We welcome that emphasis—it was very much part of ACPOS's response to the bill. For some reason, people have been tolerant of antisocial behaviour and have not taken it as seriously as communities want. I am heartened that the country is beginning to take people's concerns more seriously. Antisocial behaviour has perhaps been dismissed in the past as not being very serious because it is low on the spectrum of offending.
So, you do not think that police forces need any more money to implement the bill. You are quite happy with the configuration that you have been given.
As you know, we have a fixed grant-aided expenditure allocation. As a chief constable, I have to meet the demands that are upon us. If, let us say, the threat levels of international terrorism go up, we have to divert officers to patrol ports and airports. We do not get any extra money for that work; we have to divert resources. If, for example, a major investigation is required, officers are diverted to work on it.
You have not answered my question. Do you need more resources to implement the bill?
I suppose that the reason why I have not given a yes or no answer is because I accept the reality of public sector life in Scotland. If we had more resources, could we put more police officers on the street and satisfy more communities? Yes, we could. I suppose that the decision about how much Scotland wants to invest in policing is a matter for politicians and the electorate. It is a question of priorities. Do we want to put more money into the health service so that we can fund more hip operations or so that more drug addicts can be helped? The question is too complex for me to be able to give a simple yes or no answer.
I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who contacts the police because they have been adversely affected by antisocial behaviour. They either do not get a quick enough response or they do not get an adequate response. Although we have taken a certain view on particular parts of the bill, let there be no doubt that we understand that antisocial behaviour is a blight on many of our communities. I am referring to antisocial behaviour not only by young people, but by a range of different people who can be threatening and intimidating. In my view, that is entirely unacceptable.
You mentioned the police redeveloping contact with their communities and the requirement for more police officers, but you did not mention community wardens in your written submission—nor did ACPOS in its submission. I have heard informally that the Scottish Police Federation—or some of its members—is strongly opposed to devolving police powers to community wardens. In fact, I heard from some of your members that they call the provision of community wardens policing on the cheap and believe that the wardens are inadequately trained and poorly equipped. The bill will provide a fair few millions of pounds for community wardens but will not provide a penny for an extra policeman. Is my impression of the Scottish Police Federation's view wrong?
Our view is that community wardens who carry out civic functions are entirely appropriate. However, we believe that it is extremely important that there is a clear distinction between community wardens and police officers. In Scotland, that distinction exists—there has been no transfer of police powers—and what we are concerned about is the proliferation of police powers. Community warden schemes are starting up around the country and we do not take issue with any of them, provided that there is a clear difference between the wardens' function and that of the police.
So you are happy that community wardens can issue fixed-penalty notices and so on.
That is an important issue because community wardens, as they have been designed to date, do not have an enforcement role. Putting a community warden into an enforcement role opens up a whole different argument. They would need to be properly trained, because issuing fixed penalties will bring them into conflict with people. Therefore, it is not so much that the federation opposes community wardens; it is more that we regard them as having a role that is distinct from the role of the police.
So you would be happy with the money that is going towards providing more community wardens. I understand that there is a pilot in Tayside and Grampian to pay special constables. You would be happy about money going towards providing more community wardens rather than more police officers.
Having said what I did about community wardens, I should say that we also said that we would prefer the new finance to be spent on providing extra police officers. The case for having more police officers in Scotland is clear.
My question is for Mr Strang, because it relates to his area of Dumfries and Galloway. Committee members have been consulting up and down the country and I was able to go to a consultation with community groups in Dumfries, where the subject of community wardens was discussed. I do not know whether he was an ex-member of Mr Strang's force, but there was a particular gentleman there who said that the local police rely heavily on the intelligence that they get from local communities. He also said that community wardens would be another pair of eyes and ears and could help the police in their fight against crime. I understand that Dumfries and Galloway does not have community wardens, but has community development agents who help in local areas with the environment, litter and so on. Do you agree with the gentleman from Dumfries that community wardens would be another set of eyes and ears on the streets?
Yes, very much so. There will be two community warden schemes starting in April in Dumfries and Galloway, one in Stranraer and one in north-west Dumfries. The wardens will be employed by the local authority, not by the police, and we see them representing communities, being in communities and sorting out all sorts of problems. They will pass on information not just to the police but to other departments in the council—if there are repairs needed to lighting or housing, for example—and they will play a valuable role in encouraging community activity. They will be confined to quite a small area, so they will get to know people well and, as you said, will be eyes and ears.
Do you not foresee any difficulty for them in working with the police?
They have not yet started, but we will want to ensure that we have good communication links with them. If there is anything that we need to pass on to them or that they need to pass to us, we will have to ensure that those communication links are strong.
Has there been consultation between the force and the local authority?
Yes. We have worked closely together, as all forces in Scotland have, in developing plans for community wardens. At this stage, we see it as a first run. We shall see how the wardens work and develop working practices. If the initiative is successful, there might be opportunities to extend it to communities other than the ones first envisaged.
Are your organisations in favour of the move to civilianised jobs—which, in effect, are non-policing jobs that are currently done by the police—to release police to go out into the local area? Communities welcome a high policing profile, although there is sometimes a debate about how effective that is. Are you also in favour of moves to take police out of the jobs in the court process that somebody else could comfortably do?
To answer your first point, it seems to make sense to have as many police officers as possible available for operational deployment. If there are tasks that are currently being done by police officers that could be done by someone without police powers, that makes a lot of sense, as they are more likely to be expert at that activity. There has been a long history of civilianisation and releasing police officers to operational duties. In relation to court custody and prisoner escort, the task of driving prisoners from the police station to court or prison will be contracted out later this year. That will free up police officers for operational duties.
But what if it were to become an offence for them to come back? Surely that is what characterises the problem.
No, I do not think so. Clearly, if people are behaving in a disorderly manner, the fact that they are committing an offence has not prevented them from behaving in that manner in the first instance. So—
We cannot gather evidence because nobody will come forward. If it were to become an offence to be in the place where the group is gathering, the issue of having to identify people would not arise. The police have told me that they go to places but they cannot see the crime that has been committed. They say that they cannot lift somebody who might be under-age drinking even if there are bottles of drink beside them. The only thing the police say they can do is to take the drink from them. That is the nub of the argument around dispersal.
To finish the first point, even if we keep coming back again and again, we will not solve the problem. The real strength of the bill is that it says that we need to work together to look at the root causes of antisocial behaviour. We need to ensure that appropriate resources and facilities are available and the police need to be in a position to respond appropriately, which is where intelligence-led policing comes in.
On the question of civilianising jobs—as I think the convener put it—that process has been going on in the police service for as long as I have been in it and it is not at an end. Mr Strang referred to court security duties. The federation has no difficulty with the issue of escorting prisoners to and from court, but we have a slight concern about security in courts. We continue to think that the presence of a police officer will be required in certain courts. The number of police officers who would be released from court security duties is still to be established.
We have touched on the dispersal of groups a couple of times, but I have some further questions on the subject.
The introduction of a problem-solving approach, as you described it, and which I described as identifying antisocial behaviour hot spots and coming up with an action plan to deal with them, will of itself send out the message that we are taking antisocial behaviour seriously and that we, as local partners, will do something about it. We have never had designated areas, so we are being somewhat speculative about the impact on an area of designating it a hot spot for antisocial behaviour.
It has been suggested that designation might have a negative impact, in that it might attract people to an area for a little sport, shall we say. Do you think that that is a reasonable fear?
I can understand that comment and I am not sure that that fear can be discounted entirely. One of our frustrations is our concern that we will get into a cat-and-mouse game, which we have experienced with street races in which people bait the police deliberately in the hope of getting them engaged in a car chase, which of course can be lethal. There is a possibility that that fear will be realised, but it is not necessarily realistic.
You have both mentioned the difficulties that could be involved in designating an area, given the bureaucratic hoops that would have to be jumped through. I am keen that, if the dispersal powers are introduced, more organisations are consulted before designation takes place. I am thinking not just of local authorities, but of organisations that are involved in youth work and community mediation. What do you think about that?
There are two main problems with the proposed power of dispersal, the first of which is the bureaucratic process that would have to be gone through in designating an area. The bill says that we would have to gather evidence first, then report, consult, publicise and advertise before we were authorised to designate an area. That would involve a lot of police work, both on the street and behind the scenes. To use the bill's terminology, statements would have to be taken from witnesses who had been "alarmed or distressed" by the behaviour or action of groups in order to establish that the antisocial behaviour had been "significant and persistent". Decisions would then need to be made about the parameters of the relevant locality, the specified period of designation and/or the particular times within a specific period. All that work would then have to be reported in writing and submitted to the local authority for consultation. After that, the senior police officer who gives the authorisation for designation would have to publish a notice in a newspaper and display the notice in conspicuous places within the designated area.
I have a question for Mr Keil and another general question for both of you.
As I said, I have no doubt that the First Minister and other MSPs have met police officers who said that they could use extra powers. However, without an explanation of the detail of the proposed powers or a close examination of the bill's terms on authorisation and of the requirements once authorisation has been given, which involve questions such as how to operate the provisions in the bill and how far apart two people have to be before they are dispersed, a police officer who has not seen the difficulty would answer yes to the simple question whether he or she wants more powers to deal with unruly groups.
You think that you and Jack McConnell are speaking to similar police officers, but that the difference is the amount of detail that those officers have about the proposals.
Yes.
Another concern is that the exercise of the power of dispersal would undermine relationships between communities, the young people in those communities and the police. Do you share that fear?
The debate about the so-called power to disperse has been blown out of proportion and is a distraction from the main thrust of the bill. The ACPOS position, which was in our response to the consultation paper, is that current powers are sufficient to deal with antisocial behaviour. If people are disorderly on the street, behave in a way that causes alarm and distress or commit a breach of the peace, adequate powers are available to deal with them. Therefore, it is hard to envisage how those powers would be used in addition to other powers.
Surely the crucial difference is that it is proposed that the police will have the power to disperse people because of their presence in a locality where significant, persistent antisocial behaviour has taken place, and not because they are committing an offence. If people were moved on or dispersed, or if they were charged for refusing to disperse when they had not committed what could be described as an offence at the moment, would that undermine their relationship with the police?
I cannot see circumstances in which people who are committing no offence other than being in a place would be moved on. If people caused alarm and distress and a breach of the peace, they might be warned and told to move on.
We have talked about the authorisation process. Before any of the proposed powers in section 19 can be exercised, an officer in a designated area must have
There is general agreement that, either under existing laws or under the bill, the police should deal with groups that are seriously misbehaving, but there are also groups of youths who go about as if they were in a sort of open-air youth club—perhaps because there is not a real youth club that they can attend. Such youths may not be doing anything wrong, but they may intimidate and worry local citizens, because having 20 teenagers around can be slightly worrying. Have you any advice on how the latter law-abiding group of young people could be better dealt with?
I would recommend a proximity conference, in which the young people and older people in the community are brought together so that the older people can describe the impact on them of the young people's behaviour and the young people can describe the intentions behind their behaviour. Such conferences have been found to be enormously successful. That idea is at the heart of restorative justice, which says that, if there is a breakdown in relationships, we need to get people together to talk about and deal with the problem.
I have never heard the term "proximity conference" before, but I recognise what Mr Strang means.
That is a helpful suggestion. There is a lot of rhetoric about early intervention, but in my experience very little such activity takes place. There are some good schemes whereby the police are involved with young people. An example of that is the Edinburgh youth café, which is just round the corner. Is there more scope for proactive policing activity, perhaps along with street youth work, to try to tackle such problems even earlier than Mr Strang has suggested?
There is an argument for that. For instance, the purpose behind community constables going into primary schools is not only to issue messages about safety and the dangers of alcohol and drugs, but to develop relationships with the young people and to build a positive image of the police. I suppose that it all comes back to the question of resources and priorities. Although it is probably good for police officers occasionally to visit youth clubs, develop rapport and share information, we need to balance that approach with attending to a list of outstanding calls. The situation is difficult.
I cannot speak for other areas or cities, but I know that in my area community cops get involved with youth clubs—indeed, every community cop in my area would be trying to get involved with young people. I assumed that that happened everywhere. If that does not happen, it certainly should do.
The problem is not that young people are gathering in an area, but that offences such as tyre-slashing and damage to property are being committed. To offer a solution to the problem that you described, I would ask, "Where's the CCTV camera?" A CCTV camera will gather evidence, it does not have to go to court—
We are talking about a residential area—two streets in a nice area with no shops. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should have CCTV cameras in every street.
Not at all. What I was saying was linked partly to what you were saying about shop workers and groups outside shops, where there could be CCTV.
In the situation in my constituency, the police patrolled the area but did not have the power to stop those young people going to that particular garden. It would have been of benefit to those young folk not to have been gathering there, because they were eventually only going to get into trouble.
I agree.
It would have helped if we had been able to say that, between such and such hours, for a period of time, they could not go to that area.
If those young people are damaging property and behaving in a disorderly way, I do not think that they are going to take any notice of the fact that they are not allowed to gather there. If they are already law-breakers—which is what you are saying—and they are not just gathering for an innocent purpose—
If somebody returns to a spot so that you can say, "You shouldn't be here, and you can be charged," is that easier for you than the situation in which there is a group of 40 people, a slashed tyre and a broken bottle, and you have to say, "It was one of the 40 of you, though we don't quite know which one"? From which situation is it easier to gather evidence? You are saying that, if people disregard one crime, they will disregard another. Which situation would be the easier to police?
You raise an important point. If the power to disperse gets on to the statute book, and if an area is designated in the way that is described in the bill, a police officer can advise someone that they are in a relevant locality and that they should go away and not come back within 24 hours. For that to be effective, it would have to be done every 24 hours. The notion that the people who cause the difficulties will, on one telling, simply disappear and never come back is, I think, wrong. To gather evidence of whether the person was there the previous night and has come back 23 and a half hours later—which would be an offence under the act—would be an incredible complication.
So, if you had the power without the bureaucracy, you would recognise the point that I make—that it is an easier policing issue to identify somebody coming back to an area than it is to choose one out of a group of 40 as the one who has committed an offence.
No. That is not my point and I would not like you to think that it was.
Can you understand the feeling of being in a parallel universe that I experience in dealing with the serious issues that people bring to me? I am not talking about the folk who need proximity conferences and need to understand that young people make a bit of noise when they gather. I am talking about people who, over a long period and with the help of the police, have been wrestling with the difficult problem of a place that has become an outdoor youth club—not because there are no youth facilities elsewhere, but because youngsters prefer to gather in that place than to use the free swimming facilities that are available down the road. Youngsters from across the area gather there—they are dropped in the area by their families, who perceive it as a gathering point—and there is evidence that crimes are committed. There is broken glass, graffiti and alcoholic drink, and there is suspicion that there are youngsters under 16 there. The police, to their credit, have made such places hot spots, developed strategies for dealing with them and genuinely wrestled with the difficulty.
It is reasonable for you to consider that, and you have done so for several months. However, I feel that there is a lack of understanding between the position that I am taking and the position that you describe. There is nothing missing in the current law—nothing that the proposal for a power to disperse would add. In a relevant locality, how can anyone know whether a person has been warned not to return within 24 hours?
The police could simply say, "Nobody is going to gather in this area, because distress has been caused to the local community. If you come back, that will be an offence. We have notified the local community that that is the case." Is that the power that you would want? If the police already have that power, why are these groups still gathering?
As far as I am concerned, it is because we do not have the time and the resources to attend every call for assistance of that nature.
Even when the police prioritise the place, target it and have a programme that identifies that they are going to work there? I am sure that there will be a range of views on the use of dispersal powers; however, the local police tell me that their difficulty is that it is not sufficient for them to see somebody standing with drink beside them. They cannot move that person on, although they can take the drink from them. They certainly cannot tell the person to go away and not come back.
I cannot understand why that is the case. If the conditions exist that would allow a superintendent to designate an area a relevant locality, by definition the circumstances exist to allow the police to use the current common-law powers.
Folk are saying that there is a persistent problem. They hear the police on a national level saying that they have all the powers that they require; however, they are being told locally that the police cannot move the group away, although they can deal with any offences that it commits. Can you understand why people lose faith in the police? That is a bigger cost to some communities, in which people are effectively policing themselves.
I said earlier that it is a source of great regret to me that people have lost confidence in the police, but it is certainly not because the police do not have the powers. I cannot explain it any other way. I am sorry. I would need to know the specific details to establish whether a breach of the peace occurred and whether obstruction occurred under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 before I could tell you precisely what police powers could be employed.
So you would have to identify an offence. It would not be sufficient that, over a long period of time, 30 or 40 youngsters had been gathering and there was evidence of vandalism and under-age sex. Those things happen, but to police the situation you have to have evidence of individual offences, as opposed to saying, "Enough is enough. This has got out of hand in this local community. To give the local community respite, for a period of three months, while all the other youth work and stuff is going on, we will simply say that this is not going to be a gathering point. This is not a place where your mammy and daddy are going to drop you off for your Friday night's entertainment."
The bill requires that the person's behaviour causes fear and alarm to other people. If you are saying that the condition is that they are causing fear and alarm, that would constitute a breach of the peace. If they were standing peacefully, at whatever age—whether it was an old-age pensioner or young people—and their behaviour did not cause fear and alarm to others, there would be no power even under the bill. You are describing a power to prevent people gathering where offences had been committed previously. The bill talks about—
Because it is the same people whom we have not been able to identify as the perpetrators of individual offences, but there is evidence that when the group is present there is vandalism, intimidation, graffiti, paint on cars or whatever. Perhaps there is an issue about an individual's right to go wherever they wish on the public highway, but is it not reasonable that individuals should have the right to sit in their own living room, rather than have to sit in the kitchen, because they cannot tolerate what is happening outside their door?
I refer to my opening comments. We recognise that across Scotland antisocial behaviour is a real problem. It is raised with us and we need to take it seriously. That is why we welcome the measures in the bill: they attempt to tackle exactly the problems that you describe. However, the offence in section 19 applies to individuals, not to a group. It is about an individual person committing an offence for which they could be dealt with by a police officer. My real fear in all this—I go back to the power of dispersal being blown out of all proportion—is that from the way you are talking, there is an expectation that if the police are given the power to disperse it will solve all the problems and somehow be the solution to the pain and anguish that communities are suffering at the moment. I think—
Is it reasonable for people in such communities to expect that if they are experiencing such distress every night that they cannot sit in their own living room or park their own car in front of their own door, the authorities—whichever they are, including the police—will do everything they can to address the problem? It will, perhaps, be about resources, but it will also be about priorities. For example, we always get the police at football grounds, but we do not always get the police to come to a family's door when they are faced with these kinds of problems.
I think that it is entirely reasonable for citizens in Scotland to have the expectation that you have described if they are suffering at the hands of people who are committing offences—that is why we employ a police force and why we have a criminal justice system. Of course I am not going to argue that people ought to suffer that; no community should suffer that. Our advice is that the power in part 3—unlike all the other aspects to do with intensive intervention, such as taking the issue seriously and putting in extra resources if there is an antisocial behaviour hot spot—is not the right solution to the problem we face. I would caution you against thinking that, by including the power in question, the world will be dramatically changed in a way that will suddenly stop groups gathering as they do at the moment.
I can assure you that I would not be naive enough to think that anything any of us could do on such issues would solve the world's problems, but it would be nice if we could ensure that everything we did at least focused on recognising how serious the problem is and if the measures we took, combined with all the other things we are doing, were intended to work towards that.
I wonder whether you have been following the evidence that has been given to the committee to the extent of having read the useful remarks of the Edinburgh Labour councillor who described problems of a similar nature in her area in south Edinburgh over a period of time. I think that her evidence included reference to a visit that some members of the committee made to that area, during which we met community leaders of various political views and none who spoke highly of the co-ordinating influence of an elected representative in bringing to bear resources—such as the police, housing and community education—on the problems.
No, I think that that is a very good description of how those sorts of problems can be addressed. Different people have different perspectives on a problem and it is useful to share them. By concentrating on a particular area, one can put together an appropriate solution. I fully support your proposition.
One of the essences of that would be the multidisciplinary nature of the approach and the availability of many different resources; in other words, the police cannae do it on their own.
That is at the heart of the notion of each local authority developing an antisocial behaviour strategy. This morning, we have not discussed antisocial behaviour orders that would prevent individuals from going to a particular place, but they might be appropriate. That is a powerful element in the bill. If it has been identified that someone repeatedly causes a problem at a particular location, an ASBO might well be an appropriate response.
So you would suggest that the provision for extending the scope of ASBOs to cover children down to the age of 12 would be a useful addition to the armoury?
Yes. I have given evidence elsewhere on this. If the power is appropriate for a 16-year-old, it might be useful for a 15-year-old. I am not saying that it would be appropriate in every case, but I would be happy to see it made available if it was suitable in particular cases.
Mr Keil, do you wish to comment?
I have nothing to add to that. I agree with all that was said.
I want to go back to some of the exchanges on the dispersal of groups. Whether or not things have been exaggerated, the committee has to scrutinise the way the bill has been written. If the bill were implemented as it stands, what enforcement issues would arise? If there were a no-go area and a group had been dispersed, how would the police know that it was the same group that had been there 24 hours before? Would you take names? Would you take photographs?
Obviously, whether the bill goes through is a matter for this Parliament. If the power exists, it will be there for us to use. To use it, we would need to know that a person had been told to leave a locality and not return within a specified period. To do that, we would need to take their name and address and record the fact that the person had been so warned. If they then came back, we would then know that they had been warned.
On a similar issue but from a different angle, I want to ask about when a no-go area is designated outside a post office and a group is there to protest about the closure of that post office. If other people say that that group is causing them "alarm or distress", to use the terms of the bill, would the police—out of fairness and a desire not to differentiate between different groups, such as a group of young people and a group of older people—have to move that group along and disperse the people?
No. You have touched on a difficulty that we may not have clarified earlier. Once an area has been authorised, before a police officer can exercise his or her powers under section 18(1), they must have
I am slightly confused by the distinction between antisocial behaviour and criminal behaviour. Even though I have been sitting looking at this bill for weeks, I have not got the distinction clear in my head. Mr Strang talked about serious antisocial behaviour. In the past, what I thought of as antisocial behaviour involved things such as dog fouling, vandalism, graffiti, litter and people not having any consideration for others around them. When you talk about 150 people in a street setting cars alight or breaking windows, I think of that as a riot and therefore criminal behaviour. Is there a difference between criminal behaviour and antisocial behaviour? Does the bill cross over into areas of criminal behaviour although it is called the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill?
There are two uses of the word "antisocial". You talked about damaging property, setting fire to things and dropping litter. Those would generally be described as antisocial behaviour. However, each of those behaviours is a breach of the law. It is an offence to drop litter and it is an offence to damage property. If those offenders were being dealt with in the criminal justice system, they would be dealt with for the specific offences they had committed. Section 110(1)(a) describes antisocial behaviour as acting
I want to move on to sections 20 and 21, which seem to be causing your organisations a bit of alarm and distress.
We acknowledge that it would be useful to have guidance on how the power is to be exercised. The police service and the Scottish Executive would work together to develop the guidance, to ensure that it was implemented consistently across the country.
I laid out my concerns about section 21 in my submission to the committee. My question about section 20 centres on the difference between the reference to "direction" in section 21 and to "guidance" in section 20. Section 20 says:
So again it would be easier to give you a power and make you accountable for how it is exercised.
Sorry?
I said that it would be easier to give you the power and make you accountable for how it is exercised. Would that be a more reasonable approach than using words such as "shall", "guidance" and all the rest? Would it be more straightforward to give your organisation the power and make you accountable for how it is used?
That is essentially how the system works. Indeed, it has been that way since the police service began.
I have a little question about the power of direction in section 21. At the moment, the bill does not seek to require the minister to make Parliament aware of the direction or its contents. As a result, a direction could be made confidentially, as could the direction that it not be disclosed. Could directing that a direction should not be in the public domain create difficulties?
I cannot imagine any circumstances in which a direction would not be in the public domain, particularly given the provisions in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 that are about to come in.
So your quick response is that that act would require any such direction to be in the public domain?
Yes, but our advice—and our hope—is that the power of ministers to direct officers will not be included in the legislation.
Yes, that is right. I think that we have covered the matter—I do not want to make a meal of it.
If the Deputy Minister for Justice said that it was not the intention behind section 21—or section 20, as Douglas Keil said—to interfere with operational matters, why is the provision in the bill?
From what I have heard from other people, I am quite sure that it was never the intention to give absolute instructions to chief constables to designate such and such an area. I think that the issue is more to do with the wording, which I think flies in the face of the well-known concept of a chief constable's operational autonomy. However, I heard Mr Henry say last week that he intended to review the provision, which I hope means that the wording will be softened or indeed taken out.
Although we had identified a number of other questions to ask you, we wanted to focus on certain key issues. However, I will run through those questions and if you want to make any specific points, that will be helpful. It is not compulsory to do so, because I know that you have included a lot of information in your written submissions.
My only comment is that we welcome the breadth of measures outlined in the bill. This morning, we have discussed a wide range of circumstances that affect different communities across Scotland. Parenting orders, antisocial behaviour orders and so on will be useful for certain occasions and certain people and we support them. Moreover, we feel that the introduction of fixed penalty notices will have real benefits if they result in less bureaucracy and fewer attendances in court. We are very happy to support those measures.
I am quite content with my comments. I have had the opportunity to say all that I want to say at this morning's meeting and at the Justice 2 Committee.
With that, I thank the witnesses. I suspend the meeting for two minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I call the meeting back to order. I welcome our next witnesses, whom I thank for waiting because we have run on slightly later than we expected. I welcome from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—more affectionately known as USDAW—Ruth Stoney, who is national policy officer, and Audrey Hendrie, chair of the divisional political committee. I and other MSPs were involved with the interesting and important freedom from fear campaign that USDAW ran and I had the privilege of going along with Audrey Hendrie to meet local shop workers in my constituency. We took the view that people who work in shops have a particular perspective on the bill.
As you mentioned, we have been running the freedom from fear campaign throughout the United Kingdom for the past 15 months. The campaign concerns the violence, abuse and intimidation that shop workers suffer. We have not been specifically involved with the consultation on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, but we have taken evidence from shop workers throughout Scotland as part of the freedom from fear campaign, particularly on incidents in their shops and what has been done about those, and on problems that have been caused for our members by on-going antisocial behaviour, abuse, lack of respect, violence and armed robberies. Therefore, we have built up quite a lot of information about antisocial behaviour from our members and from stores throughout Scotland. Audrey Hendrie has visited many stores in the past six months.
When we went round stores, we were alarmed by the number of incidents that had happened. We knew that incidents were happening, but having things quantified was terrifying. A feeling of powerlessness came through. The police have said that their hands are tied in some communities and powerlessness is the overwhelming message that has come through every questionnaire and survey; indeed, a feeling of powerlessness comes through every time that we speak to our members. The bill goes a long way towards empowering people to do something about that powerlessness.
I welcome your coming along to give evidence. I suspect that, like me, other members have met people who are involved with small retail outlets. In one case that I know of, intervention in a situation led to serious injury. I am sure that such incidents are repeated elsewhere.
I think that our members would say that they experience antisocial behaviour. Most of them would say that they experience criminal behaviour when people start fires in entrances to shops, when under-age people try to buy alcohol, or when people shoplift or threaten staff. Those are criminal acts, but staff and the police do not seem to be able to deal with them, particularly if they are committed by gangs. There is the problem of collecting evidence and being able to deal with the people who are involved, particularly if the offenders are under 16. Such behaviour affects staff and local communities. For example, people do not feel able to go to shops because they feel threatened and intimidated by the atmosphere around the shops.
In essence, then, from your experience you believe that further resources are required to deal with a great deal of criminal activity. A wide discussion about the bill's definition of antisocial behaviour could be opened up by your initial remarks, which focused on the role of the police and of other agencies in preventing people from promoting themselves into criminal activity from behaviour—such as causing nuisance, alarm and distress to people—that stops short of being criminal. Is that why you think that the bill will deliver some value?
Certainly. As the convener said, the staff of small stores in particular feel incredibly vulnerable, especially if the store has very few staff and is open late at night, when the numbers of customers coming to the store might not be very large. It does not take a high level of what might be called antisocial behaviour to make the one or two staff in such a store feel alarmed and intimidated.
Your submission explains many of the common forms of antisocial behaviour, including attempted theft, attempted under-age purchases of alcohol and intimidation. Which aspects of the bill will be of assistance to the work of your members?
The extension of antisocial behaviour orders to under-16s will be useful. At the moment, youngsters feel that they are untouchable and that is the message that they give out. They know what the police can and cannot do to them, but they are especially aware of what the police cannot do.
Having heard the substantive evidence that the committed received this morning from the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, do you still support the dispersal of groups provision?
Yes, we do. I made the point earlier that the behaviour of groups of youngsters in particular can escalate quickly and suddenly from what is not criminal behaviour to serious criminal behaviour. Our members have problems with youngsters who come into stores and try to shoplift where there are few staff, perhaps late at night. If the staff try to deal with the problem by excluding them from the store—even if nothing has been stolen—all of a sudden they could be under assault and attacked with bricks, rocks, bottles or even bicycle chains. A situation can develop in one minute that can turn into a serious problem, particularly if youngsters have been drinking, which is what they do outside stores.
I do not wish to restate what the police have already stated clearly, but do you not accept that the police already have the powers to deal with such incidents?
The message that we get from our members and from other bodies that have gone to the police is that the youngsters are persistent offenders. The police say openly that there is nothing that they can do because of the youngsters' age. We regard the power of dispersal as a preventive measure to stop problems before they start. Our members are intimidated by crowds of youths hanging about outside their shops when they close up at night. Until you speak to those workers, you do not realise what an effect that has on them. The powers of dispersal represent a way to give them back some control.
In their dialogue with the convener, the police talked about staff who might have had a problem every Friday and Saturday night for months. If staff have been able to gather evidence of that, why should they have to wait on a Friday night until the next problem occurs? They do not know who will be injured next or what the problem might be—it might be serious. Staff would like the police to be able to disperse a group before that happens. If problems have occurred every Friday and Saturday night for a certain time, then there is evidence that that gang or group has been causing intimidation and alarm even before they commit a particular offence on a particular day. At the moment, the police can send members of the group away, but there is nothing to stop them coming back 10 minutes later. The power of dispersal, however, would make it an offence for those people to return within 24 hours.
Your written evidence sets out the problem well, but in a worrying way. You mentioned a constructive way forward that you discussed with the police—the issuing of forms for shop staff to fill in. Are there other constructive ways with which to deal with the problem, such as having panic buttons in shops to which the police would respond quickly? Do you have other ideas to improve the policing of shops?
Certainly, many stores install panic buttons. It is likely to be the larger stores that have the money for such resources. Unfortunately, in areas with a high level of incidents, police are refusing to answer panic buttons. ACPOS wants any duty on the police to answer them to be removed because there are too many problems. Panic buttons are not the solution, unfortunately.
You gave an example of a parent intimidating a shop worker who had refused to serve a young girl with drink. Is it not possible to get the police to charge that person? He has committed an offence. A parenting order would probably take for ever. It is surely quicker to take action via the police and the courts.
Families who intimidate individuals in communities are very difficult to deal with. One reason why we support the power of dispersal is that it depersonalises problems. Our member who was intimidated did not feel that they could take the matter to court. The family was well known locally and our member was concerned about repercussions for them, their family and their children. Such families can be a serious problem.
Is there a particular issue for people who work in small local shops and who also live in those communities? I have heard local evidence of intimidation when people are known in the local community. Do you know of examples of that?
There are many examples. There are daily occurrences of staff being assaulted or spat on, of attempted till snatches, and of groups of youths hanging about in car parks, drinking and taking drugs. Car parks are used in drug dealing. In small communities, everyone knows who those people are. However, the groups feel that they are untouchable and the parents have let them run out of control. The police say, "We are taking them back to their parents; what more can we do?" The parents know about the problem. Parenting orders that have teeth and that will be implemented would be really helpful. Some of the problems are caused by a lack of parenting skills.
There can be big problems for shop workers not only in small communities but in larger communities. Threats are common, and many of those threats include the words, "We know where you live and we know where your kids go to school." One of our members has very bravely said that we could use the example of what happened to her. Her son was threatened with a knife as he got off the school bus because the youngster she had caught stealing DVDs knew her son and her family. They were holed up in their house for weeks, too afraid to go out because of intimidation.
It seems to be a feature of this whole area that the people who are most directly affected are very often silenced by what has happened to them.
Yes. Our campaign has enabled people who did not feel able to speak out to do so. As Audrey Hendrie said, we have been amazed by the amount of evidence that has emerged and the number of shop workers who are living in fear.
I want to pick up on an issue that emerged from Donald Gorrie's questions about alternative approaches. You mentioned the recording and reporting mechanisms, which sound positive; at some point, it would be good to hear more about whether they are working. Has USDAW made any attempts to promote community mediation techniques and proximity conferences, for example, which the police have told us are very powerful in changing behaviour in the longer run? If you have not had a role in such promotion, would you consider having one?
We have not had any role in that but, as one of the police witnesses said that he had not heard of proximity conferences, I do not feel too stupid in saying that I had not heard of them either. In most cases, we have not been involved in such work on a national level, but I have made a note that we could advise our members to go to local police or crime prevention officers to try to set up such mediation, because that would help.
Through the freedom from fear campaign, many local communities started to work together to address the issues. I know that the police, MSPs and local community leaders were all involved. Although such work has not been done nationally, the freedom from fear campaign has made a difference in some areas.
Has that involved bringing young people into the process as well?
Yes, although it has been more a question of people saying that they had had enough and deciding that they needed to do something because the situation was no longer acceptable. People have taken charge and examined the possibilities for making things better.
Pretty much everyone from whom we have heard, whatever their opinion, has said that the dispersal provision will be used in extreme circumstances where there is a significant, persistent problem; it will not be used on every street corner where groups of young people might hang around. This morning, the police have told us about what they perceive as the difficulty of going through the bureaucratic process of designating an area and the resource problems that they think that they would have in responding to calls and chasing up repeat calls to ensure that people were not coming back within 24 hours. Therefore, I am puzzled about why you feel that the measure would give more control to your members and other people who work in shops and suffer antisocial behaviour. Surely the problem would be more or less the same—it would still be about police resources and their ability to respond to calls. I do not understand why you feel that your members would have more control over the situation.
If our members were building up evidence, they would be able to hand that over to the police, which would make our members feel as if they had some control. By building up a case that would help the police and the local community to address the situation, they would not be ignoring the problem but would be doing something constructive about it.
At the moment, the kids know that there is nothing that shop workers can do. The proposal would mean that shop workers could tell the kids that they were compiling evidence of what the kids were doing and that they would be handing it over to the police and asking them to deal with the behaviour through parenting orders or ASBOs, for example. Currently, police have to be called out time after time to deal with youngsters who are causing problems. If the youngsters disperse the first time that the police come, but then congregate again, the only thing that the police can do is disperse them again.
I want to establish whether the alternative approaches that we have heard about—such as community mediation, community policing or the designation of hot spots where the police work with everyone who is affected by the problem—would also provide your members with the opportunity to feel that they were being listened to, to contribute to evidence gathering and to be part of the solution. Is the proposed new police power the only way of involving people?
We need a combination of all those approaches. The issue is not just about giving the police new powers to disperse groups; it is about involving the community and getting people to work together. There are no quick answers.
I hope that solutions other than using the proposed new power would be tried first, but unfortunately our members are experiencing extreme situations and are very vulnerable. It will be an awfully long time before the Scottish Parliament has another opportunity to introduce such a power, which our members believe is needed now. If the Parliament does not take action now, the opportunity will be lost and many of our members will feel severely let down.
Are you concerned that, if an area were to be designated, the problem might simply be moved to a shop down the road?
Obviously we are concerned, but, at the moment, two late-night convenience stores that are not far apart might be experiencing the same problems.
The power would be used only in extreme circumstances, rather than in a scattergun approach.
The problem might move to another area. However, at the moment, serious problems arise when, for example, a community store serves a larger area and is a community focus. If local people are prevented from using that store, it might have to close down, which would create a big problem for the whole community.
Thank you for your evidence. I think that we are hearing answers to the questions that we would usually have time to ask.
That was the outcome when, during my six-month secondment to different workplaces, I visited many small convenience stores. When people started to talk about what was happening, they realised that they could do something about it. They saw that being a member of the union gave them protection. Union membership means that there is always somebody to whom they can turn. It was good to watch that happening.
We are working with smaller stores and with the Association of Convenience Stores, whose campaign against retail crime involves many smaller independent shops as well as convenience stores.
Convener, I think it inappropriate for the committee to ask a trade union about its methods for recruiting members. The impression is given that only USDAW can represent small retailers, whereas such retailers could join the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce—
With respect, I think that that is not the point that was being made. If I had taken the view that the question was inappropriate, I would have indicated that. Other members have perhaps strayed from the remit of questions more than the previous questioner did. If the witnesses feel that a question is inappropriate, they can choose not to respond. People can judge from the Official Report what their response was.
I have a quick question on ASBOs. Do you have evidence on whether the system that is currently in place is working for your members? You welcomed the extension of ASBOs to cover under-16s. What evidence is there that ASBOs are working at the moment?
Across the UK, the right to apply for ASBOs is not being used enough. When they started off, ASBOs were very bureaucratic and involved a lot of police time in gathering evidence and local authority time in implementing them.
There has been discussion over the past few weeks about equal opportunities. Particular concern was expressed by parents of children with special needs, whose behaviour might be seen as intimidating or threatening through no fault of their own. Are there gender issues in relation to the intimidation of women workers, especially where they work alone in garages at night, for example?
Women are definitely more vulnerable, as they are seen as easy targets. They feel more intimidated when they are working alone and when they leave the shop at night and five or six youths are hanging around.
Do you see that as a gender issue in relation to the protection of your workers?
Yes. The majority of our members, particularly in retail, are women. The freedom from fear campaign has raised a lot of gender and class issues. Some people think that it is okay to threaten and intimidate women who work in a store, but they would not dream of doing that to women in higher-paid jobs.
Thank you very much for coming along. You have given us a useful perspective on the issues. If you want to expand on any points, we would be more than happy to hear from you.
You have enabled us to cover the main points that we wanted to make. Thank you very much. I hope that we will be able to work with the Scottish Parliament in raising awareness of the proposed new powers, because it is extremely important for our members and for people to know the range of options that exist to empower them. Public expectations may be raised—I am sorry about that—and the demands on the police will increase, but the public and shop workers can be a great resource in helping the police to deal with antisocial behaviour.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We welcome our final witness today. Grainia Long is the parliamentary and police officer—police officer? Not that I am obsessed. Grainia is the parliamentary and policy officer for Shelter Scotland. She has attended the Social Justice Committee in the past and we welcome her attendance today.
I will start by saying that, although we appreciated the fullness of the consultation on the bill, we had a couple of issues with the consultation on the strategy. That consultation took place over the summer and it was sometimes difficult for a campaigning organisation such as ours to seek clarification on some of the points in the strategy. When a consultation is launched at the end of June and closes at the beginning of September, during a parliamentary recess, that is difficult for organisations such as ours.
Perhaps you have not heard it, but a lot has been said about youth justice, support for youth initiatives and supporting people through other legal means, for example. Shelter suggested that the lack of a timetable for a bill on the housing improvement task force's recommendations meant that the Executive was not treating the matter as a priority. In that case, you said that the introduction of legislation marked whether the matter was a priority, but on antisocial behaviour you are saying that there should be a broad strategy and that we do not need to legislate just now.
I will clarify the point about the timetable for the housing improvement task force's recommendations. We asked for an implementation timetable for all the measures in the task force's report. Although we have heard clearly that the Executive intends to introduce a housing bill, we have not heard clearly how it is implementing other areas of the task force's agenda. When we talk about timetables and timescales, we are talking about the whole agenda, legal and non-legal. It is the same for antisocial behaviour. After the antisocial behaviour strategy was published, we swiftly had a bill, but we have not swiftly had a timetable setting out how the Executive will approach community-based initiatives, which were included in the consultation that was carried out last year, or what it will do on all the other non-legal measures. We do not have a problem with the bill as such, but we have a problem with the initial focus being on the bill and with the non-legal measures being left to another time.
If further evidence assured you that the non-legal measures were part of the picture, you would be more comfortable with the bill.
Absolutely.
It is not the case, as you charge in your written submission, that the Executive is using only legislative means. You recognise that there is a broader picture.
We need to be assured that the Executive sees the broadest picture. The bill must be part of a strategy, but we need to hear what the rest of the strategy will be.
But it is reasonable for the bill to be part of the broader strategy.
Absolutely.
I am particularly interested in the aspects of your written submission that deal with housing. One of your points is that ASBOs should not be linked to people losing a tenancy. Can you elaborate a wee bit on that?
Sure. That issue came up during the consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001. The bill was amended so that, if an ASBO was served on someone who lived in social housing, the landlord could convert their full tenancy to a shorter tenancy—a short Scottish secure tenancy.
You have made the point that tenants who are evicted from council or housing association property tend to go into the private sector, which is more problematic. You are keen on a mandatory certification scheme. Can you briefly explain that?
We made the point in our written submission that people who are evicted from social housing tend to move into the private sector. Part 8 of the bill is about housing registration areas, but we feel strongly that the bill does not go far enough on that issue. We think that the policy and the principle are right, but we want to ensure that all landlords are held to account. A mandatory certification scheme would do that. In order to trade as a landlord, a person would have to receive a certificate; to get the certificate, their rented property would have to meet certain physical standards and they would have to ensure that their contact details were available to a local authority.
A youngster could be made the subject of an ASBO for antisocial behaviour in a shop, for example, but there could be no evidence of such behaviour manifesting itself in his tenancy. Why would you imagine that a good housing provider who is regulated by Communities Scotland would use the fact of the youngster's ASBO to evict his whole family? I cannot think of a housing association or housing officer who would regard an ASBO as an opportunity to get a family out. Why would they do that if a family was not creating any problems?
One of the points about the short Scottish secure tenancy is that, when someone is evicted, they can be evicted without grounds. A family does not have to breach the tenancy; it can be evicted for any reason. If someone is unfortunate enough to have two months' rent arrears on their property and, if an ASBO is served on their son or daughter, their landlord can convert the tenancy in the knowledge that he can eventually evict the family on the ground of rent arrears. I am not saying that that practice is endemic in local authorities across Scotland, but we want to ensure that such a culture does not develop.
There is no evidence that it has developed. Indeed, the example that you gave of the local authority moving speedily to evict someone who had an autistic child is the direct opposite of my experience of the cautious approach that local authorities and housing associations take in respect of evictions.
Certainly, from the work that we have done in our housing aid centres and, as a result of our being contacted by solicitors in some local authorities, we feel that that culture is just starting to develop. The measure in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 has been in operation for only just over a year. We believe that, if landlords feel that the way to get rid of certain families is by serving an ASBO and converting the family's tenancy, that is what will happen. However, we need to ensure that it does not happen.
The evidence that you have just given us is serious and we have to know more about it. If that is the culture that is developing in local authorities, I want to know which of the local authorities is behaving in such a way.
And housing associations.
Yes, if a housing association were acting in that way, I would ask Communities Scotland to see whether it was fit to trade as a housing association. I would also want to look into a local authority that was acting in that way. I ask you to back up the evidence that you have given in answer to questions from the convener. I would like those responsible for acting in that way to be named and shamed.
I can understand that. However, when solicitors ring up to tell us about problems, it is not up to us to name and shame the culprits; it is up to the people involved to contact their MSP or the Communities Committee. Members will understand the position that we are in. We are being contacted by members of the legal profession about the problem. We also have cases in our housing aid centres. All that we can do is to put it to you that that is what we are hearing. You can take my evidence how you like, but I cannot force local authorities to come forward and speak to you about the issue. I hope that they would and I would like to think that they would, but I cannot make that happen.
If a housing authority or a registered social landlord is following such bad practice, Shelter Scotland has a responsibility to do something about that. A certain amount of Shelter's funding comes from the public purse. You are entitled to make public information such as that. I am not suggesting in any way that you should give us details of individual cases, but you could identify the local authority in whose area such practices are occurring. Such things should not happen. What you describe was not the intention of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, of the Social Justice Committee, which supported the bill as it passed through the Parliament, or of the then Minister for Social Justice, who took the bill through the Parliament.
Shelter is developing a research project on the use of the short Scottish secure tenancy. The girl who is out carrying that project has sent out a form to all local authorities. I have a feeling that she is developing the research over the next month. Something might come out of that work.
The local authorities have given evidence not to this committee but to the Local Government and Transport Committee. You presented your evidence in response to a question from the convener. I want to know more about the case that you mentioned.
Okay.
We move on to address the private sector. All of us are agreed that private landlords need to take more responsibility for the management of their properties and for managing antisocial behaviour as and when it occurs. We agree with what you say in your submission about part 8 of the bill, and the provision will not go anywhere towards resolving the difficulties that I experience in my constituency.
I will try to explain. When we refer to registration and certification, we may be talking about the same thing. To trade legally as a landlord, someone would have to have a certificate. Any private landlord who was found to be trading without that certificate would be in breach of the law. That is the catch-all provision. No landlord could trade unless they had a certificate, and to get the certificate, their property would have to meet certain physical standards. That is where certification links in with the work of the housing improvement task force. Landlords would also have to submit their contact details to the local authority, which would own the list of all private landlords in the area. Are we not talking about the same thing? In order to trade, all landlords in Cathie Craigie's constituency would have to submit their contact details to the local authority. That is how we would know all the private landlords in the area and how to contact them if we needed to.
Would the question of the suitability of a person to be a private landlord be considered, or would the certification that you propose be based only on meeting certain minimum standards in the house to be let?
That issue could be considered as we develop guidance on certification. If, when consulted, people say that we should also consider the suitability of landlords, that may become an additional criterion. In our briefing for the parliamentary debate on the housing improvement task force report, we said clearly that one of the weaknesses of the task force is that it does not deal with such issues or with management standards. I appreciate the point that the member makes. Suitability could be included in a wider consultation on how to ensure that landlords meet certain criteria in order to obtain a certificate. A consultation on the criteria would be useful.
If Shelter were to carry out a consultation on a bill on the private housing sector, that would involve a wait. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill gives us an opportunity to take the first steps. Would Shelter support amendments to or the replacement of part 8 of the bill to introduce a mandatory licensing or registration scheme?
We echo the concern expressed by the City of Edinburgh Council that the bill seems to link registration with antisocial behaviour, which gives registration a negative connotation. We should remove that and put the issue back into the housing improvement task force's area of work, which covers all aspects of housing. We should say that all private landlords must meet certain standards—both management standards and physical standards—and that their contact details must be available, so that we can contact them if there is antisocial behaviour on their premises.
A lady who spoke about this part of the bill at a tenants and residents forum meeting in Cumbernauld said that unless the Parliament and the Executive tackle the issue of private landlords, the police and the authorities will not be able to deal with problems of antisocial behaviour in the two or three streets around the place where she lives. How do you respond to that?
I do not dispute that; we are talking about timing.
Should we say to that woman that we will leave the issue for two years?
Certainly not. I would not want to leave it for two years. The onus is on the Executive to move the matter forward quickly. We would like the consultation that the minister announced just before Christmas to start as quickly as possible; we have asked for clarification of when it will begin. We have asked for the issue to remain within the work of the housing improvement task force, whose work should be brought forward to catch the work that you are doing on antisocial behaviour. It is important to leave the mandatory certification scheme within the task force's work.
But the task force's recommendations on the issue were really soft. Why should we leave the issue to the task force rather than legislate on the basis of the evidence that we have gathered?
If we thought that you were going to introduce a mandatory certification scheme through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, we would have to consider that and come back to you. I have concerns about introducing such a scheme in that way because it will not deal with physical standards, which are as important as management standards. I want to make sure that, in the rush to bring in a mandatory certification scheme, we do not forget about the physical aspects.
Would it be acceptable to bring in such a scheme to deal with antisocial behaviour? We can catch the physical aspects when—
That would be acceptable if we ensure that we catch the physical aspects in a housing bill.
One of the issues that has unified the committee so far is that of private landlords. How would you identify that a private landlord is trading? One way to do that is to check whether housing benefit is being claimed on a property. Are you in favour of such information being provided more generally? It is possible for a private landlord to trade without a certificate, in which case there is no evidence about who the landlord of a property is. That is one of the big issues around dealing with antisocial behaviour quickly. Some of my constituents had to go to the land register of Scotland to get hold of their landlord. How do you envisage that information being made available in a way that is not discriminatory? We find out that someone is trading either when a problem emerges and people complain about it, or by using housing benefit records.
That is where the issue of information sharing comes in. I was pleased to hear the police put such an emphasis on that in their evidence today. If a complaint has been made against someone, the police will be aware of it. Local authorities' antisocial behaviour strategies must highlight information sharing as a way to target landlords who ignore the antisocial behaviour of their tenants. The strategies are exactly the vehicle for that.
I have been asking witnesses about the provisions on the dispersal of groups. I do not see anything about that issue in your written submission. Do you have any comments on the power to disperse groups, perhaps in relation to rough sleepers who are subjected to, or accused of, antisocial behaviour? Would such a power be of more benefit than the current powers?
We did not make a specific comment on the issue in our written evidence, but we raised it in our response to the strategy. We have spoken to several MSPs about it and we have watched the clarification of the dispersal orders that has come from the Executive.
I think that someone else will ask you about that.
I am quite happy for Grainia Long to respond to that issue now.
Closure orders are another issue on which we hope the committee will seek clarification. We are slightly concerned about the provision, although we understand the intent. In some ways, the measure has been lifted directly from the policy intentions behind the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in England, which contains a power to close premises if class A drugs have been used and if nuisance or annoyance has occurred as a result of that usage. However, the measures in the bill stop at the use of class A drugs and do not link that to nuisance or annoyance. Although the policy intention is to close down so-called crack dens, we are concerned that the bill contains a power to close down residential premises and about how that power will be used. We seek clarification from the minister about the guidance on how closure orders should be used and on the exceptions—or when they should not be used. For example, we would be concerned if a closure order meant closing down access to someone's home, which would lead to homelessness. That would not get to the bottom of the antisocial behaviour and would ultimately be ineffective.
I am sure that you will find comfort in the guidance when it is produced. I would love to see a closure order put on at least one property in my constituency. Although the property is held in someone's name, we cannot get the evidence to pin that person down. The person does not stay there—it is not their only home. I would be happy if that particular flat was closed, as would people who live near it because they would get to live in peace and quiet in their homes.
That is a key issue for Shelter. As we have said, a number of people who come to us for help have been made homeless because they have been victims of antisocial behaviour. We are fully aware of the impact that such behaviour has on people's lives and we agree that tackling it could prevent homelessness. It is in our interests to continue to deal with antisocial behaviour and to tackle it in any way we can. However, we want to use the best ways in which to deal with antisocial behaviour. If a person lives in a property and is a victim of antisocial behaviour, it is understandable that they want somebody to deal with the issue. However, we want to ensure that such behaviour is tackled in the best and most effective ways. We have always said that eviction should be used only as a last resort.
What would you suggest in the case of a family that lived in a flat and had been offered support, but persisted in antisocial behaviour? If guidelines stipulated that a package of support must first have been offered, would it be acceptable to serve a closure notice on such a family?
I do not understand why a closure order would be preferable to repossession action. As I said, eviction should be used only as a last resort.
I think that repossession action would be started if there was a really serious problem involving violence or threats to people's safety.
I do not accept that a closure order would be the best option. Why would we physically board up a property? If a family causes trouble and the intention is to get them out of the property, the normal approach is to start a repossession action. To close up a property would involve boarding it up, which would further disturb the neighbours. The family would be pretty much out on the street and they would breach the closure order if they tried to enter their home to collect their property. The process seems cumbersome and complicated.
Does Scott Barrie want to ask anything?
No, I think that my questions have been answered.
I think that Grainia Long said that if an ASBO was granted in relation to a child, the family's tenancy might be converted to a short Scottish secure tenancy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Does that mean that a tenancy can be converted even if the tenant themselves is not the subject of the ASBO?
Under the 2001 act, any tenant in social housing who is under 16 and has an ASBO served on them could have their tenancy converted. If an ASBO were served on a tenant in a household, the whole household's tenancy could be converted.
I presume that under-16s are not tenants.
I see what you mean—you are referring to the people whose names are on the tenancy agreement, but the provision relates to anyone in a household. It does not make sense that the behaviour of a 13-year-old child could have an impact on a whole household's tenancy. We understand the intention, but implementation could cause trouble.
That provision could be somewhat discriminatory, because it will apply only to tenants and not to people who own their homes.
Absolutely. We made it clear in our submission that the sanctions apply only to people who live in social housing. If an ASBO were served on the 13-year-old child of an owner-occupier, their home would not be in jeopardy.
You touched on an equal opportunities matter. We have considered whether children with special needs—particularly children with disorders such as autism—could be subject to ASBOs for their behaviour. The Executive's policy memorandum says:
That goes back to the point that we should not create a culture in which it is okay to take a no-tolerance approach to people who perform acts of antisocial behaviour. That is not to say that we condone such behaviour or support people who engage in it. We say just that before we apply sanctions, we must investigate all cases fully.
Such a culture would not necessarily be created. The National Autistic Society Scotland cited the same example in evidence to us. I think that I am right to say that the view of that society's witness was that if reassurance was given that an investigation had been undertaken and that the local authority or housing association had an obligation to investigate the cause of noise, the witness would understand that in other circumstances when that noise was being made, eviction was reasonable.
Sure. Once the due process of law has been followed and once investigations are happening, the option of sanctions is always available. I am saying that I am concerned that, as some evidence suggests, the bill will assume that we have good homelessness legislation and that no one will be without a home, so a more aggressive approach to evictions can be taken.
A more rigorous approach to antisocial behaviour might lead people to demand evictions, which would expose difficulties. You would probably agree that some behaviour should be subject to zero tolerance—such an approach is obvious as far as violence against women is concerned. My view is that one can have zero tolerance of violence against women while working with the perpetrator of that violence. You would still say that we have zero tolerance of such violence, and of racial abuse. Do you think that it is unreasonable to say that we should take the same approach to the serious antisocial behaviour that is described in our communities?
What we are saying is that we absolutely agree that one should have no tolerance of such acts when they are carried out, once the fact that they are happening is established. We need, in all cases, to establish what is happening, and we have no tolerance of antisocial behaviour when we are sure that it is happening. The issue is that we must first ensure both that it is happening and that we know the level at which it is happening. The investigation must take place first.
Do you agree that it is reasonable that those investigations take place? Do you further agree that, just as we recognise the consequences for families and vulnerable people who become homeless because of the behaviour of other people, it is entirely reasonable not to be intolerant of the way in which people behave or the way in which certain conditions might express themselves? You are right to say that the issue exists across different types of housing tenure, but we should say within communities—whatever the type of housing tenure—that we want to put down a marker that such behaviour is not tolerable. We must be careful that, because we do not want to evict someone inappropriately, we end up not having the sanctions that would allow us to evict people.
Yes, but we must always ensure that we use the best way of tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour. If doing that means engaging with the person and providing them with long-term and intensive support, so be it. That approach might take longer, but ultimately it means that we will tackle the antisocial behaviour. That is more effective than dealing with the person by making them leave their home, putting them into another home and then making them leave that home. A lot of money might be spent moving people around without tackling the problem. We always come back to the main issue: we must make sure that we tackle the antisocial behaviour.
It is reasonable to say—I understand this absolutely—that you can identify vulnerable families who have difficulties and that there may be antisocial behaviour going on in their homes. However, not all antisocial behaviour generates from people who are dysfunctional—as some people call it—or troubled or whatever. Some very troubled people who have had bad things happen to them are not necessarily the people who behave antisocially.
Sorry, could you repeat that?
You said earlier that a family could be troubled—there could be difficulties in the family—and that we have to be conscious of those problems in dealing with their antisocial behaviour. However, do you accept that that explanation does not apply to all families who display antisocial behaviour? I understand that it could apply to some families but, equally, it does not apply to others. Some families do not need support from you and some might not accept it. We have to find ways of separating the two categories. We must not decide not to deal with one category because there are troubled groups that we have to deal with separately.
We are not suggesting that support is appropriate in every circumstance. You are right to say that not everybody needs support. If someone is carrying out a high level of noise nuisance, I do not think that a support worker is what they need.
Thank you very much for your written evidence and for allowing committee members to come out to see the Edinburgh families project; those of us who were unable to attend that visit got a report that it was very helpful. A number of points have been raised today on which we would welcome further comment from you. I thank you very much for coming along.
Meeting continued in private until 13:44.