Official Report 286KB pdf
Welcome to this meeting of the Communities Committee. We have received apologies from Elaine Smith and Campbell Martin, who are unable to attend.
Personally, I think that the consultation process was dealt with the wrong way around. Where were the tenants when the policy was being put together? When someone was thinking about the provisions, tenants who live with the problems in the estates and the cities should have been with them. Dundee City Council has done well with its consultation process. The Scottish Executive may have done the best that it can as far as it is concerned, but, as far as tenants are concerned, it did not. Tenants should have been involved from the beginning.
I was quite happy with the consultation process that was undertaken in relation to my organisation. Margaret Curran came through and we had every opportunity to put our views, which I was pleased to do—in fact, I played quite a part that day. While the consultation process was good in that respect, what happens now and hereafter is the most important thing.
I endorse what John Corcoran said. Margaret Curran came to a meeting in our area, which was well attended. The response was overwhelming. The reason why we are here is to see how far we have taken the process. We hope to see some fruits of our labour.
If the Parliament is to legislate on antisocial behaviour, the bill must define what that behaviour is. From your experience, does the definition contained in the bill make sense? Should it be changed in any way? The bill says that antisocial behaviour occurs when a person
If behaviour is causing a tenant distress in their home, it should be regarded as antisocial behaviour. The person responsible for the behaviour does not have to be the tenant next door—it may be any member of their family or a visitor to their household. The definition that Stewart Stevenson has given applies only to the tenant of the house and should be extended to anyone in the area.
I will not try to explain the bill to you, as I might explain it incorrectly. Your point is well made, but it is worth my suggesting that the definition does not apply only to housing. Does the representative of the Central Alexandria Tenants and Residents Association wish to comment?
As far as I am concerned, the definition covers a great deal and cannot be wide enough. Antisocial behaviour affects nearly everyone who lives in local townships. I have had the pleasure of living in Alexandria for 40-odd years and it used to be a fine little town. We had a lovely little township that has been destroyed systematically by antisocial behaviour of one kind or another. In my view, the behaviour described in the bill certainly falls into the category of antisocial behaviour. However, the bill must go deeper, further and wider. If antisocial behaviour affects anyone, we must take cognisance of it and address it.
I endorse what John Corcoran has said and will illustrate his point with an example. The definition of antisocial behaviour relates to the conduct of antisocial neighbours and to youths gathering at local shops. Until recently, I lived on an estate. Recently, our Co-operative store was burned down as a result of antisocial behaviour. That cost more than £600,000. We have held many meetings with the police about such issues. I will address the issue of the dispersal of youths. In the case that I mentioned, the Co-operative was targeted systematically. Security staff who had been engaged were assaulted and had their cars damaged. Shop staff were also threatened.
My colleagues will ask about specifics later and I will not trespass on the subjects that they want to talk about. I will just put a couple of points about what antisocial behaviour is. What antisocial behaviour is not criminal behaviour? For example, burning down the Co-op sounds awfully like a criminal activity; indeed, much of the behaviour that you described sounded like criminal activity. If such behaviour is criminal, do not powers exist to deal with that? What is the distinction?
I do not want to hog the discussion, but I will answer the question. We have watched events happen. Fifty years ago, I moved to the scheme to which I referred. I have watched the culture changing. The problem should have been addressed 20 or 25 years ago. The escalation in all forms of antisocial behaviour can be seen. We have watched the wreckage outside our windows. People on all those estates are in a war zone. That is unsustainable.
It is fair to say that the committee accepts that the problems that you describe exist. We have seen them elsewhere. Obviously, we are focusing on the measures in the bill. It is not for me as an Opposition politician to defend all the measures in the Government's bill, although of course I support many of them.
You asked what antisocial behaviour is not criminal behaviour. If groups were challenged and dispersed before any criminal activity took place, that would be great. The problem is that when a group is dispersed, whose front door does it go to next? The area where I stay has no community facilities. Resources really need to be put into communities to allow them to build community facilities for people. It would be pointless to disperse groups to another area where they could bother someone else.
Stewart Stevenson asked how antisocial behaviour should be defined. I will give a personal view of what antisocial behaviour is. Antisocial behaviour by an unruly neighbour is the reason why I was awake at 3.15 yesterday morning. From 3.15 until 4.15, a problem continued, which I reported to the police twice. My sleep ceased at 3.15 yesterday morning. I am a busy person and I had loads of committee meetings yesterday. I worked all day, and by 7 o'clock last night I was absolutely bushed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is one very small definition of antisocial behaviour. That is what is happening to people like me. It is happening all over the place. I have photographic evidence that would shock you, although I am not going to show it to you. I have neighbours who are terrified. I knew an 80-year-old woman who was so terrified that she could not leave her house; sadly, she has since died.
I have five sons, 14 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. We were poor, but I was able to bring my five children up with standards in life, and they knew what they were. All the things that I was able to use to chastise my children—"You'll get smacked," or, "You'll go to bed without your supper"—have gone. When I went to school, people did not come home and tell their mum that they got the belt from the teacher because if they did, they got worse from their mother. That has all gone. They have taken away everything that could be used to control kids nowadays; it is not there any more. I am not talking about people abusing and battering their kids; I am talking about smacking them on the back of the hand or on the bottom and putting them to bed without supper.
I have a brief question for Frances Nelson, although she might not be able to answer. You said that one of the difficulties that parents have is that they now lack the ability to chastise their children physically in a variety of ways. Do you know that in Scandinavia it has, for a long time, been illegal to chastise children physically? The Scandinavians do not have the kinds of problems that we have in our communities and they do not have the difficulties that we have with our children. Why is Scotland different from Sweden and Norway?
Unfortunately, we are not privileged enough to be able to go to Scandinavia to see and hear about those things. No one comes to Dundee to tell us how they are able to do those things in Scandinavia. Maybe that is what we should be doing; maybe some people should be coming to our areas to tell us how those things work.
The comparison of Scotland with any other European country is stark. Whether the comparison is of literacy levels, the number of single teenage mothers or other problems that have been developing in the past 20 or 25 years, we come top of the poll in pretty much the whole lot of them. Those problems are endemic in our culture; that is part and parcel of the sufferance of the community. The situation is unsustainable.
The policy memorandum states:
I ask John Corcoran to respond in general terms to the question about how councillors conduct themselves. If there are specific issues about individual councillors, it would be appropriate for them to be pursued elsewhere—this meeting is not necessarily the place to do that.
In Dundee, those who are involved in mediation, the police and councillors from all the political parties—one councillor from each party—all sit on the group. There are more tenants on the working party than there are officials, which is a good idea. However, the social work department does not sit on the working party. It always says that it cannot talk about its work for reasons of data protection. That lets the social work department out of an awful lot; its representatives are not prepared to sit round the table with tenants.
Do councillors not insist that they sit round the table with you?
No. I do not think that the councillors realise that they could do that. In Dundee, the social work department is a power and an entity of its own. We have been able to get social work representatives to come to a meeting now and again on something specific that we wanted to talk about. However, that was only in relation to getting a sheltered lounge for tenants—the tenants are old-age pensioners—in a complex that did not have one. That is the only time that the social work department has ever turned up to anything that we were doing.
What did you mean when you said that social work often has a different agenda? I did not understand that comment.
The social work department would be there for me if I was doing something wrong to the kids or if my husband was being bad to me. In those circumstances, the social work department would become involved, but in Dundee that is all that the social work department sees its role as being.
Yes, but to implement antisocial behaviour strategies there must be good, positive, constructive engagement with social work.
We do not have that.
Right.
The bill requires each local authority to prepare a strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour and it requires local authorities, in conjunction with chief constables, to share information. Will that be an improvement on what happens just now?
That is more than likely for a lot of people, but we have had that arrangement in Dundee for some time. For example, the chief constable comes to federation meetings and talks to tenants. I think that Jackie Baillie would confirm that, because she has been to Dundee to speak to us. We seem to be a step further on than others, but I can say categorically that the social work department in Dundee does not have a strategy. Perhaps, behind closed doors, the council has a wee strategy going on, but it certainly has nothing to do with the tenants or citizens of Dundee.
Do the other witnesses want to respond to Mary Scanlon's questions?
Yes. I am aware—I think that most sensible people are—that a great deal of extra money has been put into policing. However, that money was needed. Certain crimes, such as internet crime and paedophilia, are getting out of control in the UK and must be addressed. Therefore, we need more money for policing, but my view is that the money so far has been insufficient. I believe that that is also the view of the majority of people out on the street.
Do you realise that there will not be a penny more for the police to implement the provisions in the bill?
That may well be the case, but, as I said earlier, I am apolitical.
I am stating a fact.
You have stated a good fact, because we must find money. I am retired, but I am still a taxpayer. As far as I am concerned, if I want to improve my way of life, there is only one way of doing that—I must pay for it. Any improvement must come out of my pocket.
I would like to ask about antisocial behaviour orders—on individuals, not on groups—on which your evidence says a lot of interesting things. Do you approve of antisocial behaviour orders? Do you support the idea of antisocial behaviour orders being available for 12 to 16-year-olds as well as for other age groups? You raised a minor but important point that has not been raised with us before when you asked who pays for antisocial behaviour orders. What are your views on that?
We support the antisocial behaviour orders, but when we had our conference last year, our members wanted the minimum age to go as low as eight. They did not want the orders to apply just to 12 to 16-year-olds and older individuals. We have a major problem in Dundee because our antisocial behaviour team is paid for from our council rents. The team also got extra money from the Scottish Executive and employed two extra staff for the private sector. The cost of that is coming out of the council tax, so the tenant is paying twice—through council tax and through rents. We would like the whole lot to come out of taxation rather than us paying twice.
From the Dundee perspective, we also support interim antisocial behaviour orders. Sometimes it takes a wee bit longer to get an antisocial behaviour order, and something needs to be available more quickly than that so that action can be taken. The police need to be able to give out antisocial behaviour orders too.
Now, if you get fined £30 or so, there is an added £5 increment, which pays the victims of crime. Surely some ingenious plan could be made to incorporate that idea into dealing with problems of antisocial behaviour. Perhaps Donald Gorrie does not really understand what is happening out there and the amount of damage that is being caused. I am talking about millions of pounds worth of damage in a comparatively small area, and that is being replicated throughout Scotland.
I want to ensure that we cover all aspects of the bill. We could be here for an awful lot longer than the time that has been allocated. We will move on to Cathie Craigie's questions and if you think that you have missed particular points, we will give you a chance to address them at the end.
The bill proposes to introduce community reparation orders for those aged between 12 and 21. It focuses on offenders making reparation in their communities. That part of the bill is covered in part in your written submissions, but will you give me your views in more detail? Perhaps you could return to the question of encouraging people to have respect for the community in which they live, which Frances Nelson mentioned. Could CROs be a way of doing that?
I sit on a panel in the children's hearings system and I think that we do not have enough teeth at the moment. I, and the federation, welcome reparation orders because, by making young people work, they will make them more aware of the damage that they have done to the community. Some children do not find compulsory or voluntary supervision to be a problem, but reparation is like community service, which improves the community in which it is done. If children have done something to improve their community, that will give them pride in it. It should be their local community that benefits.
As Alice Bovill said, the community reparation order must relate to the area in which the child has done wrong. In Dundee, we heard that that might not be the case, and that a child might live in Beechwood but have to put their actions right in Kirkton. I remember that, a long time ago, there was graffiti all over the place on the shops near where I live. It was the mothers who made the kids go down there with buckets of whitewash to clear it all up. The kids did not do it again, because of the red faces that they got—their pals were laughing at them because their mums made them go down to clear up the mess. Something good came out of that.
I certainly believe that there is a place for reparation orders but, as Alice Bovill said, we must be careful to direct them to the right places. That is something for you folks to look at; in some cases, reparation orders will be totally useless.
Alice Bovill mentioned the children's hearings system in relation to reparation orders. Do you agree with those who argue that the new disposals in the bill, if any, should be given to the hearings system, and that—rather than young people having to go through the court system—the hearings system should be properly resourced to implement those disposals?
The hearings system's hands are tied because it has to find in the best interests of the child, which is not necessarily punishment. If a child is committing vandalism, the furthest that the hearings system can go is to recommend secure accommodation—and that can be done only if there are resources, of which there are very few in Dundee. Reparation orders would give the system more teeth, to force people to do something for their community.
Rather than asking whether the disposals should be used, I was asking whether they should be used in a court setting or in the children's hearings system. Would it make a difference?
Do you mean the reparation orders?
Any of the disposals.
For persistent offenders, I feel strongly that we should extend the Hamilton experience and have youth courts. Both the courts and the children's hearings system should be used at the moment, because we do not yet have youth courts. In the children's hearings system, we have to split people into first-time offenders, abused children and persistent offenders. We cannot take a blanket approach.
I want to ask all the witnesses about the power of dispersal, which has been mentioned a lot. I assume that you are familiar with the power in the bill to designate an area in certain circumstances. We have heard various comments about the power of dispersal. The Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland told us that the reason that their current powers are not exercised successfully is that the police do not have the people on the ground, the resources or the time. They say that those constraints would still apply with the new power of dispersal. How do you feel about those points?
There seems to be an ambiguity. Earlier, I gave a particular example to do with the Co-operative. That is still a sore issue, even though we have had scores of meetings with the police. We have been left unsure whether the police had the necessary powers and whether they were used. The police reckoned that they were limited in how they could disperse people. Questions remain about the powers that the police had. The power of dispersal would seem to resolve the issue—the police would not be able to come to meetings and make the excuses, "We don't have the powers," or, "Our powers are limited." I do not think that the issue comes down to manpower. There is a total lack of respect for the police, although that is another issue.
I will answer that with reference to the past—that is the worst thing about old age, you see. When my kids were wee, they could not loiter around the streets because the police had powers to move them on, even at that time. They do not need the powers that you are offering them because they have that power already. If kids are standing in a group, they can be moved on for loitering. I do not understand what the new power is for. I can also understand the police saying that they do not have enough men to go out and move all the groups. The police already have the power that we are talking about but they do not have the manpower to move on all the groups. Am I allowed to ask you about the power? Are you talking about giving them an extra power or do they already have the power?
That is precisely the discussion that we are having. The police told us last week that they have the necessary power and do not need further powers. However, I think that the experience that was described by Mr Callaghan is echoed in other areas and it is felt that, if the police have the power, they are not exercising it. In some cases, it might be the case that the police do not have the resources to act, but that is not what the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland told us last week.
Will you now be saying to the police, "You have the powers—use them"?
That is the debate—
Everybody out there needs to know that the police have the powers. I knew that they had them.
The key thing about the new power is that, rather than being a power to disperse a group, it is a power to identify an area to which a group cannot return if the situation has become really bad.
We have an opportunity to revive the powers that the police have. We must ensure that the police can disperse crowds of the sort that we are talking about. Furthermore, once the group is dispersed, the people involved must not be able simply to move from point A to point B. The police had powers to move on such groups previously and we have to revitalise those powers. Dispersal is a key part of cutting crime.
You touched on the problem of groups just moving from place to place rather than the behaviour of the people in them being changed. In your communities, when a group is moved on, what sort of places do they go to? Are there facilities that they start to use once they are moved on? Do they cause the same problems elsewhere? If so, will the designation of specific areas from which they can be moved be genuinely helpful in the long run?
Some members of the DFTA and some council officials went to Sedgefield. We found that visit to be extremely productive. At that time, there were wardens there whose prime job was to go about the place moving people on. The police did that as well. However, there were community centres and youth centres that the people in the groups would be taken to. They were told that that is where they had to be. If they did not want to do that, they had to go home and were therefore off the street. If they did not go home after being told to do so, the police charged them with loitering. As a result, the people in Sedgefield were able to deal with the situation, and did not have the same kinds of groups hanging around and doing whatever they were doing. They had somewhere to take, or to direct, those young people. Moreover, once the young people had been introduced to that environment, they liked and used it.
There is good practice across the country in that respect.
Do you know of any centres that allow people who are not staff to open them?
Well, community centres in my constituency open at night and many of them are staffed by volunteers. Obviously the situation is different in different places.
Good. It certainly does not happen in Dundee.
In response to Patrick Harvie's question, I want to tell the committee about the experience in my community. We have no community centres at all. We have to apply for funding from outwith the council to social inclusion partnerships and other organisations. Although we are fortunate to receive funding for a youth group, we have to hold its meetings in a sheltered lounge that can be used only if the pensioners are not using it for a bingo evening.
As I explained, we have implemented a regeneration programme and are engaging in various outdoor activities, outward bound and other activities. Many people out there are working very hard to regenerate play areas and so on.
Jackie Baillie may ask a question, if she is quick.
I will try to be quick, but there is something about the Haldane story that has not quite come out. I would like to ask Joe Callaghan some important questions that need yes or no answers.
Generally speaking, yes.
So the problem is not a lack of facilities.
No. Facilities are being improved. Some facilities are still to come on-stream, but there are numerous facilities.
Let us consider the case of the fire at the Co-op. Evidence that the committee has received from USDAW also mentions fires. Do you think that if the police had powers of dispersal, they might have been able to use those powers to stop people from congregating and therefore could have stopped the Co-op from going up in flames?
Most certainly.
That is helpful.
If communities were engaged in such a process, I am pretty sure that it would be valued. I am sure that John Corcoran would agree with me.
Thank you—that discussion was a model of precision.
I would like to turn to another part of the bill, which concerns parenting orders. Dundee Federation of Tenants Associations has said that it broadly supports the concept of parenting orders. For the Official Report and our colleagues from Alexandria, would the witnesses from Dundee say whether parenting orders would improve matters, bearing it in mind that the policy memorandum states clearly that no parenting order could be imposed unless a parent had failed to take up voluntary resources that had been offered? Perhaps Alice Bovill would like to say something first, because she has experience of the children's hearings system.
Parenting orders would be used in many circumstances, such as children not going to school, children being neglected and children causing vandalism in communities. The problem lies in getting parents to work with agencies for the three months that are stipulated. If parents do not work with the agencies, they will be fined. Many of them claim benefits, so who would pay those fines? Will parents simply not pay fines? Parenting orders would last for a year and could then be extended.
You have experience as a children's panel member and have rightly explained to the committee that the only real power that a children's panel has is in imposing statutory supervision requirements on children, whereas sometimes the root of the problem is parents' failures. Are parenting orders a solution to the dilemma in which members of children's panels find themselves whereby they must do something in respect of a child but want to direct resources at the parents?
Yes. When we impose a compulsory supervision order, the child is often willing to work with the social worker. He or she will come in and will phone the social worker at all hours of the day or night. However, social workers go to parents' doors but the parents are never in, or they are told that the parents will be back in half an hour, but they do not come back in that time. Therefore, the parents never engage with the social worker and the root of the problem is never dealt with. There is engagement only with the child, which can probably happen anyway without a supervision order.
Do any of the witnesses from Alexandria want to comment on parenting orders?
Parenting orders are a must: parents must start to accept responsibility for their offspring. They are not doing so, so parenting orders must be part and parcel of the bill. If they take only one third of those young individuals who engage in antisocial behaviour out of the cycle, parenting orders will be successful. We have to try everything that is available to us to put a stop to what is going on. I would back parenting orders 1,000 per cent. They might sometimes fail; we know that there are other problems out there, but we must go ahead with them.
For the first time, I might have a wee bit of difficulty with what John Corcoran has said. We need to have a broad umbrella that covers a lot of areas. I agree with the principle behind parenting orders, but I do not see how the desired effect can be achieved. I will give you a wee example. A mother has three kids, down to about five months old. Already, the two older kids have been taken into care. She has been a real scourge of the community, this one. She has been moved from one area to another, then she was moved again. Her ex-partner stays through the door and up the stair, and deals drugs. It is a pitiful situation. The kids witness blood-baths, drug dealing and all sorts of abuse. They are trailed out to go drinking with the mother at all hours of the morning.
Those were very useful points. On the part of the bill that deals with parenting orders, and looking at it from the child welfare perspective, I point out that, parents have in some cases been unwilling, rather than unable, to parent their children. There is child welfare legislation for bairns who find themselves in that situation.
Let us get back to the relevant point. John Corcoran has had recent experience of upsets involving youngsters at the back of 3 in the morning. Apart from the issues of schooling and so on, we see children out in communities during the day and we wonder why they are never at school.
The bill deals with antisocial behaviour by tenants of private landlords. The Dundee Federation of Tenants Associations, in particular, addresses that issue in its written evidence, so I know that the federation has experience of dealing with it in its community. Will the measures in the bill be sufficient to tackle the problems that you have experienced?
Obviously not. I do not think that the bill goes far enough. Registration of landlords must be implemented—there should be a register of all landlords. If someone owns and lets a house, that person is a landlord. Everybody has said to me that such a register would be very difficult to handle, but most people who have bought council houses on estates in Dundee are letting them to people who are claiming housing benefit; the houses are not let to people who are not on housing benefit. If someone rents a house, the landlord receives the housing benefit in return for allowing that person to stay there. As a landlord, I do not have to carry out any repairs nor do I care if the tenant is causing havoc—it would all be the same to me. The other tenants in the area would have to put up with it, but I would not because I would have bought a nice house and be paying my mortgage using that housing benefit: that is how it is done. We are saying that landlords who are not willing to register should not receive those housing benefit payments. That would be an incentive for them to register.
I do not think that I need to ask you any more—you probably support my position.
Registration would probably discourage tenants—as Frances Nelson said—from buying their council houses and renting them out. If a landlord had one tenancy, they would probably use a letting agency, which would supply its management details. That would be a plus. A landlord with a single tenancy would not go to all the bother of registering.
I agree with everything that has been said on that aspect of the bill.
We have reached the end of this evidence-taking session. Thank you for attending and for providing such full and helpful responses. As I said at the beginning, if there are points to which you want to add, we will be more than happy to hear from you. I hope that you have a safe journey back home, given the weather outside the window. I suspend the meeting for two minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Our second panel of witnesses is from the Echo youth group in Dumfries. I welcome Stefan Howat, Samantha Dale, Lloyd Livingstone and Stevie Little. I hope that you had a safe journey up this morning. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. We are keen to explore everybody's interests in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and to hear their views. Certainly, when the committee goes out into the country, we are keen to talk to young people as well as to older people. There are concerns about getting that balance right, so we appreciate the fact that you have come along today. If there are questions that you feel you did not get enough of a chance to answer, we are happy to hear from you later. Equally, if there are questions that you do not have a view on, you can tell us that you do not want to comment and we will just move on to the next question.
The Echo youth group is arranging a project at a fire station control unit to show how antisocial behaviour can cause wheelie bin fires and other fires and to show how to deal with it.
So your project is initiating some education on the impact of antisocial behaviour.
Yes.
As nobody has any further comments on that first question, we will move on.
Good morning. With our previous panel of witnesses, we talked quite a lot about antisocial behaviour that is caused by young people. However, we all accept that antisocial behaviour affects young children as well as adults. What is your experience of how antisocial behaviour affects you? If you want to, you can tell us what antisocial behaviour you have been involved in, but I would guide you more towards the ways in which you are affected by the sort of things that are going on in your communities.
It is always us that get the blame for antisocial behaviour, but it is not always us that are actually doing it. It is folk who are maybe 18 even, doing drugs and starting wheelie bin fires because they find it fun. Things are different from our point of view. You dinnae usually get to hear our point of view because folk think that it is always us, but it is not.
Can I develop what you have just said? You brought up the subject of drugs. One of the questions that I have been asking—as have others—as I have gone around the country is to what extent drink and drugs cause antisocial behaviour. I am thinking particularly about older children and adults—the 18 and 21-year-olds. What is your view of the effect of drink and drugs as a part of the cause of antisocial behaviour?
I would say that drink and drugs cause quite a lot of antisocial behaviour, especially in Dumfries. A lot of drugs and drink are done in Dock park and needles are left there. That causes a lot of bother.
Is drink a bigger problem than drugs?
No, I wouldnae say so.
Stevie, did you put your hand up to say something?
No.
That is all right. It is not compulsory. Does anyone else want to say anything?
I think that the problem is equal between drink and drugs. Drink causes a lot of problems in Dumfries, but drugs do as well. There are a lot of drunken people going about Dumfries and Dumfries is just not safe for children to go about. When children see those people, they think, "I'll try that." At local parks in Dumfries, needles and syringes are found and children might use them, which is a big problem.
So to some extent the behaviour of older children and adults is part of the problem. Do Lloyd and Stevie want to say anything about the behaviour of adults? You will never get a better chance.
I think that junkies cause the biggest havoc, because they are all over the bit and nick stuff to sell it for their kit. We were up the town yince, in Blockbusters, and this junkie came along and went to steal my bike. We came out and he said, "I was only kidding," but if we had not come out he would have nicked it.
So your property is at risk from people who are older than you and who have a drug problem.
Aye.
Do you want to say anything, Lloyd?
No.
Come on, you can slag off the adults now. You can really get it on the record.
Weans are picking up needles and that round the flats where we stay. The flat landings are where a lot of the junkies do their stuff.
You have made quite clear the kind of antisocial behaviour that worries you. Thank you.
Cathie Craigie and I certainly enjoyed meeting you in Dumfries. That meeting was helpful to us. It is nice to see you in Edinburgh.
We were in Lochside, which is the bit where we all stay and where drugs are a problem. Maggie Marr came round with another woman and asked us to fill out a questionnaire.
She came round the streets.
Aye, with another woman. She asked us to fill out a questionnaire about drugs and alcohol.
From filling in a questionnaire, how did you get involved with the Echo youth group?
We were asked to come along to the Echo and participate in what was happening.
What sort of support do you get from the youth group and how often do you go there?
We go every Friday. You can talk confidentially and get free contraception and advice. It gets you off the streets as well.
So you get advice about contraception and you can talk about anything that you feel you cannot talk to others about.
Aye.
Could you not talk to your parents?
I talk to my mum and dad about things as well, but the group gives us somebody else to talk to. We cannae talk to teachers at school. I feel that I can go to the Echo and talk about things.
Do you feel that the group gives you a lot of support and helps people who might otherwise be involved in antisocial behaviour?
Yes.
Stevie looks like he wants to say something. Where do you get support, Stevie? Have you been involved in antisocial behaviour?
Not much. I would go to Maggie to speak about any problems. I got involved with the group because my pals were going and they said it was all right so I went just to see what it was like.
So you enjoy going to the youth group.
Aye. It is good.
I got involved because yin day yin of my pals was going to the gala or something and she told us to go along.
What do you get out of the group? Have you ever been a victim of antisocial behaviour? How does the group help you?
If we have problems, Maggie is easy to talk to compared to folk like the guidance teacher at school.
Do you not feel that you can talk to any of your teachers at school?
No.
I got involved with the Echo project because of a bad habit of mine—smoking. I was needing a light at the time and when I was walking past I saw Sam Dale in this place that I had never seen before—I did not even know that it existed. I went in and spoke to Sam and while I was in there I said hello to Maggie. She explained what they do and said that there was a youth group every Friday. Maggie is an excellent person to talk to. She runs her youth group every Friday, but if you have a problem on a Monday or a Tuesday, she has all the time in the world for you. She will let you come in on whatever day you have a problem and she will talk to you.
We have certainly heard great reports about Maggie. Are there any services that you would like to be provided? We have asked you along because we are considering a bill on antisocial behaviour. Does being in Maggie's group help you to stay away from antisocial behaviour? Does it give you the confidence not to get involved? Does it help victims and others alike?
I would say it does, yes, but in a way it does not, because not everybody goes to the group. Some of my friends get involved in antisocial behaviour. I try to stay out of it as much as I can, but at the same time I do not want to fall out with them. I am at the Echo quite a lot, and the antisocial behaviour that we caused before is not happening now.
What do you mean that you are doing quite a lot now? How has the Echo youth group helped you?
It is somewhere to go and hang out and talk to everybody else without anybody saying, "Let's do this and let's do that."
Do you feel that you might be persuaded by your friends to get involved in drugs or antisocial behaviour if you were not involved in the Echo group?
Not me personally, but I can see that other people could be.
I very much enjoyed my day down in Dumfries. We had about an hour, but our meeting could have gone on for about two hours that day, because you were all so talkative.
I do not know.
Has the group taught any of you to get involved in your community or given you the desire to become involved in other things?
Yes.
In what way?
Jobs, if you know what I mean. It is different for me, because I am older. It is hard to find a job, but since I bumped into Maggie Marr that has changed, because she knows everybody. She talks to them. I start a new job tomorrow thanks to Maggie and I sent away another application thanks to her. A placement might even be opening up at Echo, so fingers crossed.
If only we could clone Maggie.
We accept that there is a problem that young people feel that they are blamed for all the ills of mankind, although they are not to blame for them. However, some young people have problems with keeping to the straight and narrow and increasingly get into trouble with the police or their neighbours. One way in which the bill proposes to deal with that is through antisocial behaviour orders, which will be put in place by the courts. The orders apply from the age of 16 upwards, but they could be applied to 12-year-olds. From your experience, will taking a severe line with 12 and 13-year-olds who are beginning to go a bit astray help or not help?
It would help a lot. Some of the younger people are getting involved in antisocial behaviour because they see the older people doing it. If the age limit goes down a bit, that will help more people than if orders just apply to the older folk.
Do the other witnesses agree that it would be helpful to have something to get a grip on 12 to 16-year-olds?
Yes.
I will ask about dispersal. You may have heard about that. It is one of the powers proposed in the bill, through which the police will be able to designate an area where there has been a serious antisocial behaviour problem and move on any group of two or more people. Would that have made a difference in situations in which you have experienced problems? Would the power be used against the people who cause problems for you? Where would those people go after they had been moved on? Might people who were not causing problems be moved on unreasonably?
The only reason we hang around in big groups is because there is nothing to do in our community. It is just boring.
What would happen if the power to disperse groups that were causing problems—or were thought to be causing problems—was used?
There should be places to go where people can have fun, like new parks. The old ones are all broken up; the swings are broken and everything. There should be more facilities where we can do stuff.
Do you ever have problems with other groups that are hanging around, for example when you are just walking in the streets?
No, not much.
The power might cause conflict, because if the police tell a group of people who might not be doing anything that they have to move on, those people might think, "We're not doing anything and if we were they would tell us to move on anyway." The people in the group might decide to cause trouble elsewhere, just to get back at the police for moving them on. The police are not the favourite people in Dumfries—or anywhere, for that matter.
Do you think that the measure might make the relationship with the police worse?
Yes.
I reckon that the new power is unreasonable. There might be a quiet group, but just along the block a bit there might be a load of folk who were involved in antisocial behaviour. They might move on, but when the police arrived the quiet lot would get the blame, because there would be nobody else around.
How would you deal with the group who had been causing the bother? For example, a group might be hanging around outside the sheltered housing, where there were a lot of older people and grannies who felt frightened and who had been getting a hard time from that group. How could we sort that out?
Like Stevie said, there should be somewhere for that group to go. There is nowhere—there is the Oasis youth centre up the town, but that is no good for someone who lives away down the bottom of Lochside. There is a community centre in Lochside, but it does not offer much for anybody.
Sometimes folk do not use the community facilities; they do not like them or they do not think that the facilities are really for them. Sometimes some young people prevent other young people from using the facilities, too. Do we need to think about the kinds of facilities that are on offer?
Aye.
Does anyone else want to comment on that?
The bill would introduce community reparation orders for people aged between 12 and 21. That means that people who had committed an offence would be required to make reparation to their local community, perhaps by removing graffiti or doing something else that would repair the damage that they had caused, so that the community could see that happen. Would that be an effective way of getting people to pay back their debt to society? Might it prevent people from offending again?
But how would you make people do that work? I cannot see that working at all, especially if the parents had something against it—parents are protective of their children.
What if it was the law that they had a choice between washing off graffiti and being imprisoned or put into secure accommodation?
That would be different. That would push it forward. It would help.
That is quite a good idea, but, as Stefan says, it might not be pushed enough. If somebody was sitting scrubbing graffiti off a wall and all their pals walked by, they would be so embarrassed that they would realise not to do it again, otherwise it will just happen again.
If folk write graffiti and have to wipe if off the wall, they will just do it again to get back at the polis. They will write something on the wall about the polis to get back at the polis, then deny that it was them and refuse to scrub it off.
What would happen if somebody was in a gang and one or two out of seven were writing graffiti and nobody would say who it was? Would they all get made to scrub it off?
A CRO would be used for somebody who had appeared before a children's panel or a court and who had been found, after all the evidence had been looked at, guilty of an offence. It is not intended that the police would be able to say to a group of people that they were all guilty and had to do something; the order would be used when somebody had committed and been found guilty of an offence.
What do you think that we should do about graffiti? Is the fact that people paint on walls and other people's gates a problem? What should we do about it?
I do not know. If you are sitting by a big plain white wall with spray paint in yin hand and a big black marker in the other, you are obviously going to want to do something to the wall, because it is boring. You should make a wall like that look a bit decent. You should make it look brighter.
If I had a big bright white wall and I liked it that way, would I have the right to be annoyed if somebody came along and spray painted it?
Aye.
One of the things that the bill suggests is that we ban the sale of spray paints to under-16s, so you would not be sitting with it in your hands. Might that help?
The ban should be for people up to 21. Older people commit those crimes as well, not just 12 to 16-year-olds. I see graffiti as more a thing for 16 to 21-year-olds; I cannot see it being for people younger than that.
So if we consider banning spray paints, should the age limit be slightly older?
Yes.
I am not sure whether you have any views on what I will ask about, but, if you do, I will be interested in hearing them. My question is the same as the one that I asked the previous panel of witnesses—I think that you were sitting in the public gallery, so you probably heard it—and it is about parenting orders. The bill proposes a new power, so that, if the parents of children who were causing problems had not accepted the support that was offered to them, a court could issue a parenting order against the parent rather than having to take action against the child, which is what would happen at the moment. Do you have any views about whether that would be good or bad?
Should parents ever be responsible for what you get up to?
No.
Should your parents get in trouble if you do not go to school?
No.
If the problem is that the parent is not helping the young person, what can we do?
It is not always the parents' fault. Some folk fight with their parents, so their parents cannae do anything about it. It is not their fault all the time; it might be sometimes, but I dinnae think it is fair to blame the parents.
We are not necessarily blaming the parents. You can disagree if you want to, but my view is that, when a parent is deemed not to have been doing what they should have been doing—irrespective of what their child has been doing, they have not been doing their bit to help the child in the way that Johann Lamont has just mentioned—it is more appropriate to target that parent rather than to take action against the child, which is what would happen at the moment.
That depends on the situation.
I accept that.
What are your opinions on electronic monitoring? As part of a penalty on somebody who is over 16, the courts can tag that person. He or she might be placed under the restriction of being at home during some hours or staying away from some places. The tagging allows their movements to be followed.
I think that the mates of someone who was tagged would take the mick out of them. If the person who was tagged had the six-by-six times, they would have to be in from 6 pm until 6 am. That would give them nae chance of going out for even a wee while with their pals. Some folk who go to Maxwelltown High School have to go all the way out to Heathhall or Georgetown to get hame, so there is nae chance of them getting back in time to go out for even half an hour, if they want to get in on time.
Some colleges do not finish until 5 o'clock. Those restrictions would be unacceptable in that situation.
It would be up to the court to have sensible limits. The court can say that somebody must be at home during certain hours and tagging has some success in enforcing that. What do you feel about tagging young people who have been in trouble?
I do not like the idea at all. It is not a good idea.
I think that tagging would work, because it would keep people away from the areas where they get into trouble. A curfew for being at home would keep people out of trouble for a while, until the tagging ended. After being tagged, the person might see sense and might keep out of trouble.
As has been said, everybody is blamed for what one person does. If one person from a group graffitied a wall, we might know who did it. Some people would like all young people not to be out on the streets after a certain time, but instead of that the idea is to pick out the individual who is causing the bother and to work with them so that they are not involved in bother. Would tagging put off people you know from getting involved in bother if they thought that they would have to sit at home when their pals were out? Would tagging make a difference to them?
It probably would. Their pals can stay out late, but a person who is tagged must be in at a certain time. If they have to go in at that time, obviously they will be bored in the house. That idea might put them off causing bother.
Would it put you off if you thought that that might happen to you?
Aye.
I do not think that you would ever need tagging.
Stefan Howat mentioned the police. In places with antisocial behaviour problems, what support do local councillors, community councils and the police provide? Lloyd and others explained that when we were in Dumfries.
I am sorry; I did not quite understand the question.
Do the police and your local councillor do enough to support you and victims of all ages? Do they do enough to work against antisocial behaviour in your area?
No.
You said that quickly. Do you work with your local councillor and the police? Why do you feel that they do not do enough?
We never see policemen about. We hardly ever see them doing their job.
When you ask the police for help—
The police come.
They come about 20 minutes later.
If somebody's shed has been broken into, the police arrive about an hour after they have been phoned. They are not on time.
Do you feel that the police do not take such matters seriously enough?
They do not.
Lochside should have a small polis station. That would make it easier for the polis to reach what is happening, instead of coming all the way from the town.
Do you feel that people do not report to the police everything that they should report because they do not have confidence in the police?
Yes.
It has been said that, in the local park, swings were broken and needles could be found. Dealing with that is your councillor's responsibility. Have you told your councillor about the problems and has he or she helped?
We dinnae see the councillor going about the streets. I ken folk that stuff has happened to and the councillor has not dealt with it. Even though they have spoken to him, nowt happens. He said that the park would have new swings, but that never happened.
We told the councillor that the fields should have lights in case stabbings happen. He does not help or do enough.
There is a great big field in Lochside where it has been said for years that a park would be created, but that has never happened.
I thank all those who have attended for coming along. I do not know whether you have any last points to make. If you do not want to make them now, we will be delighted to hear from you later. We appreciate the fact that people from the Echo youth group and Maggie Marr have come to the meeting. I hope that you found the evidence session productive.
At a previous meeting, the committee talked about community centres being more available and more open. The situation can be different when someone is present in a community centre just to supervise, because that can even cause antisocial behaviour. If a centre has two or three people there who young people do not know or talk to, the young people might go into the centre to draw on tables, do things to walls and vandalise the toilets. A project such as Maggie Marr's gives people a totally different view, because Maggie talks to people and has contact with them.
People must feel that the centre belongs to them.
Yes.
Perhaps that would be achieved if a youth committee were part of a community centre. There are some examples of that in my area. That means that a centre is not just a strange place that you go to.
Yes, it is ours.
Because they have some responsibility for the centre, young people are less likely to do damage.
If we see anybody doing damage, we report it.
Thank you very much indeed. I wish you a safe journey home.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our final witnesses for today. Dennis Daly is the director in Scotland of Communities that Care and Sarah Gillen is the south Edinburgh co-ordinator. We are grateful for your attendance and your written submission. As I have said to other witnesses, if, after the meeting, you feel that you would like to amplify or expand on certain points, or that you missed certain points, we would be more than happy to hear from you afterwards.
I was well aware of the consultation process through the press and the media and we made a submission to the Scottish Executive. My only slight confusion was that it seemed that submissions were being made to both the Executive and the Parliament—a point that slightly escaped my notice. I have responsibility for five areas in Scotland. I did not undertake any specific consultations in those areas.
I know that there were opportunities for consultation in south Edinburgh and I saw a consultation document, but I did not write anything because my colleague Dennis Daly was doing that.
There are always two separate calls for evidence. The Scottish Executive called for responses to their document. As the parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill, we also issued a call for people's comments to try to inform our scrutiny of the Executive's proposals.
I do not want to make too much of the legalistic stuff, but it is obviously important that the bill is pinned on a sound understanding of what antisocial behaviour is. The bill incorporates the definition that already exists in legislation on antisocial behaviour orders. It says that someone engages in antisocial behaviour if he or she
It might be as good as we will get, but I have anxieties about the reference to causing alarm or distress. If a youngster is kicking a ball against a wall right outside my room and I am trying to do something terribly difficult or profound, such as to think big thoughts, it might be going too far to use the word "distress", but in time irritation can head towards distress. I have some anxieties about the fairly wide nature of the terms that are used. There is a personal element to what is considered alarming or distressing.
Another part of the bill qualifies the definition by saying that a sheriff can discount behaviour that a person can show was "reasonable in the circumstances". Does that give you the comfort of believing that the system will end up operating in law in a way that properly reflects individual circumstances?
I suppose that that depends on the extent to which one thinks that a sheriff's view of what is reasonable concurs with other people's views of what is reasonable. This morning, we have already heard people saying, "You've got to experience it for yourself"—whatever "it" is. Sheriffs might not experience what many people in our local communities experience regularly. To an extent, the qualification is helpful. It is perhaps inevitable that the issue comes down to a personal judgment, but the sheriff's judgment might well be different from that of people who live in the affected community.
You are saying that it is important that the sheriff does not underestimate the impact of antisocial behaviour.
That is right.
Is there an issue about being able to describe properly what is happening? Kicking a ball against a wall is one thing, but kicking a ball against a wall every night of the week or wilfully kicking a ball against a wall after being told not to do it or continuing to do it even after being shouted and bawled at are entirely different offences.
Somehow or another the community needs to communicate that. I am not quite sure how best that could be done. Before I came into my present job, I worked for nine years in community safety in greater Easterhouse. Although people used to tell me a lot about gang fights, and I believed them, what they were telling me felt like a statistical thing about group disorders and the police having to deal with them.
And so, in the midst of the bigger picture, you begin to understand a community's feeling of having to find the individual who committed an offence, just as a police officer has to do. You begin to see the gaps in the legislation.
I think that it would help. Perhaps there could be a mechanism whereby a community view could reach the sheriff who makes the decision after an incident. That might happen at the moment; I am not sure. Typically, the courts see an offender, the victim and their families. The community dimension needs to be taken into account as well. I am not sure how best that could be done, but it would be useful if it could.
Are you aware of the changes introduced by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 in the previous session? From memory, I think that the changes apply only in cases that involve more serious offences. Victims have the right to submit a statement to the court after guilt or innocence is determined and before sentence is passed. Would a similar sort of approach be of value in these circumstances?
Yes, but the difficulty with that suggestion is how to reach agreement on a community view. The view of the offender and the victim are well defined. How does one get a community view on a problem? How does a community communicate to the legal system what individual people in the area feel as a whole about the problem? If there were a means of doing that, it would be helpful. Perspective and context are always important; sometimes they can get lost.
To achieve such a view, would group disorder and other issues around antisocial behaviour have to be treated differently? It would not be possible to go into a community and take a vote on an incident. Should the police be made responsible for recording the volume of calls on an issue and listening more carefully to them?
Perhaps local councillors could do that, as they have plenty of opportunities to hear complaints in their surgeries. Local councillors might be in a position to give the community dimension to the offence, whatever it is.
Thank you.
We should accept that there has to be a twin-track approach to the problem of antisocial behaviour. The first approach is to make the necessary changes to the legal system and to enforce them. The second approach is what Communities that Care describes as
The words "early intervention" mean different things to different people. For us, "early" means early in the life of the child. In some instances, it can even mean pre-natal—before the child is born. Family support at that stage is crucial.
Is that partly because people regard the hearings system as being more productive in dealing with vulnerable youngsters? Youngsters may have been referred because of welfare issues. I have heard anecdotal evidence that the police do not pursue referrals because they do not see any great purpose in them.
I am not an expert; I have simply quoted a couple of statistics from the data. They seemed relevant, in that problems can be traced back to the family and the home in the child's very early years. I worry that, even if the bill proceeds exactly as it is, we may be back here again in 15 years' time, still asking, "What are we going to do about antisocial behaviour?"—or whatever it is called then. We have to do two things: we have to deal with today's problems but we also have to address issues in our communities.
That is one of the programmes that we have put in place. We developed an action plan that contained more than 90 recommendations, which involved people who live and/or work in south Edinburgh. We were very keen to proceed with the Incredible Years parent and children videotape series and we decided to go ahead with it for a couple of reasons. First, Communities that Care had significant evaluated evidence that showed that the programme worked. Secondly, there was a desire among workers in the area who had heard about the programme for it to be implemented in south Edinburgh.
As I understand it, the parents who are involved in the programme are volunteers. You have shown that the programme can be very helpful for parents who have problems but want to address them, but what about the parents who seem to have opted out, for whatever reason? Do you think that a similar course would work for conscripts rather than volunteers?
I would say so. Although I am no expert and have not taken the programme, the people who facilitated the training have said that the programme is highly adaptable and can meet a variety of parental and family needs. Another parenting programme is going on in south Edinburgh—the Family Caring Trust's five-to-15 programme, which is also run in a multi-agency fashion. On one of the occasions on which that programme was run, the parents who came along were very vulnerable and had significant difficulties, and they all said that it helped them considerably.
I noticed from your written submission to the committee that Communities that Care
That statement was not sidelining the bill, but saying that the bill will do what it will do. I have a personal opinion on the extension of ASBOs to 12 to 15-year-olds, although I would not present it as the organisation's view: I have an anxiety about using ASBOs with children as young as that. Much of the work that we do tries to engage with the community and get it involved—many local residents sit down and help to develop and implement the action plan—and, if young people tend to get labelled at an early age, there is a danger that sections of the community will be turned off the whole exercise. That worries me a bit. I am not keen on the extension of ASBOs to 12 to 15-year-olds, possibly because of the nature of how we engage with communities when people as young as that are causing problems. I do not doubt that they are causing problems, but I am not sure that ASBOs are the answer.
Earlier on, you talked about the fact that, after taking statistics for years, you saw at first hand the impact of a gang fight between two groups of youths and said how that had given you an example of what it is like to live in that circumstance. What about the people and police who tell me, as an elected representative, that a group of young people—or it could be one young person—under 16 is causing significant problems in their community and that there is nothing that can be done to pull them in? If something could be done so that such young people could engage with the support that is on offer, perhaps it would save them from having criminal records further down the line. Do you understand why there is a push for the extension of ASBOs?
I understand it, but I am worried about the extent to which we are likely to be able to enforce any such order by the time the youngster has reached 12 and has developed attitudes to officialdom. Earlier, I gave the example of my window getting broken. I chased the youngsters who broke it and grabbed one of them, who said, "It wasn't me; it was one of the others." He was under 16, and I had to ask myself why that youngster was out, 3 miles from his home, on a wet November night, breaking people's windows and whether his family knew or cared about where he was. An ASBO is not an easy solution by the time a youngster reaches 14 or 15—it is not easy at any age. We should start to support the family when the youngster is born. We could all be better parents: we all do our best, but we all need support to do the parenting job better.
We disagree on that, then.
I see nothing in your submission about the dispersal of groups. Can I assume that you are familiar with the provisions on that?
Yes.
Will you outline your attitude to the measure? Do you think that it would be used? Would it work or fail, and why?
I do not have a personal view. My answer is almost the same as my previous answer. If areas where youngsters were gathering and causing problems were designated, those youngsters could sometimes be moved on, which might be effective.
I gather that the power would not be high on your list of priorities, but some people have argued that designating an area represents a statement that the problem there must stop. Others have suggested that designation could make matters worse, by undermining relationships between young people and the police. Does either of those arguments hold water?
Designation might deal with gang fights. The greater Easterhouse area always had known boundaries. People from Wellhouse would fight people from Barlanark not in a field miles away but at the dividing line between the communities. The ability to designate gathering points near such a dividing line could well have an impact, but that would depend on whether we call gang fights antisocial behaviour.
In answer to Donald Gorrie, you touched on practical examples of parenting work that your project has undertaken. What are your views on compulsory parenting orders for that minority of parents who have been unwilling to parent their children acceptably and who have already been offered other support?
If those parents had declined parenting support since their children were very young, and if they had had every opportunity voluntarily to take up parenting classes or to have parenting support, and their youngsters were now 12 or 14, there would be more logic to insisting on a parenting order.
In your opinion, is the key factor that the resources have to have been offered and declined before we can go for a compulsory measure?
That would make a lot more sense. Sarah Gillen's parenting classes are for parents of children aged two to seven. Through health visitors and some other projects, we are putting in place family support before the youngster is even born. Those of us who have children will know that, at the age of a year or 18 months, a youngster can tell a tone of voice—if you say, "No," they understand what you mean. A youngster who hears only, "Yes," is being brought up differently from one who hears, "No," all the time. Our view is that the process needs to start early but that there would be a lot more logic to compulsory measures if voluntary participation had been offered over a sustained period and declined.
In south Edinburgh, we are trying to offer parents choices. For example, we have the pram-to-primary programme, the Webster-Stratton programme, the five-to-15 programme, the mellow parenting programme and what is known as SPIN training. Those programmes are for parents with varying needs. For example, the pram-to-primary programme is for Mr and Ms Average who need only a bit of assistance whereas the mellow parenting programme is for parents who have significant challenges and needs. The more that parenting programmes are offered to everybody, the more they will be accepted as the norm and people will think that everyone who has a baby, rather than only parents who have problems, should take parenting classes.
Would you agree that some families and communities have their own way of supporting new parents? Might it overload the system if every parent with anxieties or a guilt complex went off to a parenting class? It might be more appropriate for people to take such classes at the stage at which they needed them. My fear would be that the voluntary attendees would trample over the folk who are quite vulnerable and do not have family support and so on.
That is why I said that a variety of choices need to be offered. I am not a mother, so I cannot speak from personal experience, but I know that some parents struggle in the early stages of having a baby while other parents appreciate having more help when their children are teenagers. However, there have to be more choices. Such courses are becoming more and more acceptable. My colleagues who provide the parenting programmes tell me that they now have waiting lists for their programmes.
I would be a wee bit worried about waiting until a need was identified. In a way, that would be to continue in the vein that we have been in for a long time in that we would be waiting until the youngster is causing problems, having difficulties or embarking on their criminal career before we intervened. That is all very well, but the point is that we all need to be better parents and we should concentrate on parenting.
I would resist the professionalisation of things that are not rocket science. People in supportive families will learn the skills we are talking about, as will people who go to local clubs with family and friends to learn tips for being a good mother. Rather than having to track resources through a formal process, the same end can be achieved informally.
The evidence from the United States and here is that there are effective parenting programmes. The youngsters of parents who have been on courses and comparable groups have been followed over 10 or 15 years. Plenty of evidence shows that the children of parents who have been on courses end up with far fewer problems and commit fewer offences than other children. I am not opposed to informal support, but there is a need for much wider availability of voluntary support for parents—that is evidenced by statistics that I gave earlier. Large numbers of families have problems and large numbers of youngsters are referred as a result of problems in families.
In the light of what you have said, if a young teenager is in trouble, should the children's panel have the power to impose an electronic tag on them? If it does so, what should be in the package of measures that goes with the tag?
My answer to that is similar to the answers that I gave earlier. I can see situations in which tagging would be helpful for young people, but tagging alone is a negative thing. Young people would be told, "Don't go there," or "Be in before 6 o'clock." If no positive measures are put in place to trace back problems to their root and to ask why a youngster is causing problems and what can be done to take a step back and stop such problems from happening, tagging will have a limited impact. Support should be strengthened in parallel with the negative approach of saying, "Don't do this and don't do that."
From your experience, do you think that some young people would think that being tagged was a reward and a sign that they were a macho, leading person?
That is entirely possible. Some young people and some communities could see a tag as a badge—the young person could be seen as having the tee-shirt and the badge. However, the irritation of being confined to barracks between, say, 8 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock the following morning would probably outweigh the status that would be conferred. If the person does not have anybody to whom they can show off their status when they want to do so, such a badge would become less of a status symbol.
Thank you. That is helpful.
Given that electronic tagging would happen only in extreme circumstances, just as the dispersal of groups would happen only in extreme circumstances, and you can think of extreme circumstances in which tagging would be justified, this is almost a version of what we discussed earlier. It is a way of saying, "No," and saying that there is a place for sanctioning and good parenting. The issue relates to setting boundaries if nobody else is setting boundaries and saying, "If you do this, there will be a consequence." That a community might want to have such a sanction available in the system is understandable.
That is true. I return to the issue of early intervention. There are difficulties for young people if they have not had boundaries set for them through much of their lives. Police often find youngsters who are under 16 in the streets, take them back home and find that nobody is at home and that there is nobody who cares. If a youngster has not been subject to boundaries and standards over a period of time, having the community implement such boundaries and standards when a youngster is 14 or 15 might help the community, but it is difficult to believe that a youngster who has gone down one road for 14 or 15 years will suddenly change and go down another road. I suspect that it would simply be too late for many youngsters.
Saying that an approach might not work because things are so bad almost sounds like a counsel of despair. It is legitimate to ask whether anything can be done at a later stage and whether we should try to do things if things have not been sorted out early. I am talking about intervention happening a bit earlier. The police say that they wait until people are 16—or 18, if people are involved in the hearings system—because that is when they can do something. Rather than saying that nothing else can be expected, there would be a genuine attempt to intervene. Tagging is not as good as early intervention, but it is on the same spectrum.
It is a question of resources. We would have to beef up the resources for early intervention, although that would be an act of political courage or faith. The impact of what is being done with youngsters today—with babies and with two to three-year-olds—will not be felt for another 10 years, when they reach what is the peak offending age. If more resources were shifted to that early stage, the problems at the age of 14 or 15 would, in time, reduce. I would not wish to present a recipe of despair and say that nothing can be done once somebody has reached the age of 15; I would simply say that there is a limit to what can be done.
You say in your submission that you understand the need to address the problem. If we are listening to our communities, we hear that they are becoming fragmented and are spiralling downwards, despite the investment that is being made in them. People are moving out because they are in despair, community champions are moving out and our capacity to regenerate those communities is thereby reduced. Although we accept that it is reasonable, wise and practical to invest at the very early stages, we have to hold these communities together if we are to reap the benefit in 10 years' time.
I know that there are not a lot of resources available—we have to consider what it means if the police are not getting more resources to implement these measures. The emphasis seems to be very much on what we do here and now with today's youngsters. I agree with that, but the feeling of our organisation is that if we do not make the investment early on, in parallel, we will be back here in 15 years' time with exactly the same questions and issues.
I suspect that we could end up having a very long argument about that. The social justice milestones, addressing problems at an early stage and making a good start are big issues, and there is a recognition that we have to do all of that. My community would suggest that there has been entirely the opposite of a headlong dash. The problems that are developing in communities that are crumbling because people are voting with their feet and leaving have been a long time coming. We have to address the problem from both sides.
Dennis, you are obviously getting the impression that the emphasis is on dealing with the immediate problems and that other measures might not be getting taken. Given that you are somebody who is working in the field, what will people who are not working in the field be thinking? It would be wrong to think that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will stop all the other good work that is going on. We have been to the Inch and met people there, including a young mother who was on a Communities that Care programme. The people there were telling us that the things that are being done now should be continued but that other things have to happen too. I hope that you accept that what the bill proposes will not stop all the early intervention work and support programmes that are taking place.
I accept that. Even if the bill had not been introduced, we would continue to argue for more investment and resources at an early stage. I agree that measures are being taken at the early stages, but they are not enough.
Do you understand that although people who live out in the communities that are affected—including my constituents—see money going into projects, their lives are still made a misery by a small minority who engage in antisocial behaviour? Those people say that the system is not working—they agree with you. If it takes a crime measure to stop that behaviour by the small minority of young people and other people, we will have to go down that road.
I do not disagree. I am more familiar with the peripheral housing estates around Glasgow, which were established in the mid-1950s. A point was made about that earlier. Bar the first few years of their existence, those estates have been on a downward spiral for 30 or 40 years, in which the population, the building fabric and the community spirit have declined. One could go on with that list. I tried to say in our submission that a twin-track approach is needed that deals with the problems of the day and recognises that we will not turn round a decline of 30 or 40 years in two or three years.
Some communities have not been in decline for 40 or 50 years. We met communities from areas in which people were desperate to stay 20 years ago. They identified the problem as starting 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Those areas have had much investment. I can think of areas in my community that are receiving much investment now. If we do not sort out the other problem—a private landlord issue is a concern in one area—we would be as well not putting in that money, because the two elements will work against each other.
Much of the most obvious investment in the Glasgow peripheral estates is in the housing. The housing fabric has been transformed in the past five or 10 years, but we still have serious persistent problems of youngsters leaving school without qualifications, of drug abuse and of crime. Changing the building fabric and investing in other aspects are all well and good, but in greater Easterhouse, for example, the population has declined. The population there in 1971 was double that in the 1991 census. People have voted with their feet and gone elsewhere. I cannot talk about the convener's community, but the communities in which I work have declined for 20 or 30 years.
The bill proposes community reparation orders, which could be served on offenders who are aged from 12 to 21. What are your views on those orders? A community service order can specify activities for 80 to 240 hours, but on the new reparation order, that figure can be from 10 to 100 hours. Would that be more appropriate for lower-level antisocial behaviour?
My answer is in line with my other responses. A period of 10 hours is a reasonable time for minor antisocial behaviour and for younger people. Such orders may well have an effect. I am not against the measure, but I am not convinced that it will have a major impact.
Do community service orders work? Are they helpful?
To be honest, I do not know. I am not sufficiently versed in the subject to give an opinion.
In the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, the Scottish Executive said that it was aware of a variety of concerns about equal opportunities, such as the concern that children with special needs could be subject to ASBOs because of their behaviour. However, the Executive gave evidence to the committee that it was confident that the bill would not discriminate against any groups. Do you have any views on the bill and equal opportunities?
Not as such. The only point that I would make—it is of interest in the work that we do and it is relevant—is that many mental health problems that young people have can be traced back to the same factors that we deal with. Equal opportunities covers a variety of aspects, including disability, health and many others—an autistic child was mentioned earlier. There is some interest in the fact that many of the predictors or factors that are driving crime are exactly the same as the factors that lead young people into mental health problems.
Perhaps a system that picks up on those youngsters fairly quickly and tries to challenge their behaviour may bring those issues and difficulties into the open. In my experience, problems that young people are wrestling with are often buried in families. Their families are not dealing with the problem and the system is too hands-off for those young people. Would it be a positive development if it was brought out into the open that a vulnerable young person might be out in the community getting caught up in inappropriate behaviour and might be being manipulated by others in the group?
I think that that would be positive.
I will ask a question as an add-on to the equal opportunities issue. People often say that they feel that because they live in particular communities their concerns are not taken as seriously as they would be if the same things were happening in another community. The attitude seems to be, "Well, it is a difficult area that is in decline and a lot of folk are not working." People within those communities feel that they are under siege and that the police do not prioritise their needs. They believe that if someone who does not experience that behaviour regularly, does not have someone outside their door every night and lives in a relatively well-off area contacts the police, the police will attend more quickly. Do you feel that some communities are perhaps devalued and not listened to properly?
That perception is widespread: communities believe that to be the case. No doubt the police and others would bring forward statistics that show that they respond as quickly in a deprived area as they do in an affluent area. One of my hobby-horses is that many of the deprived areas are subject to lots of short-term projects. There is a project on this for two or three years and then a project on that for two or three years. People come and go.
At the simple level of taking seriously a complaint by a mother with two children, does the police response differ according to the area where the complaint is made? Do the police say that in some areas there is a big picture to consider, that there is a history of gang fights and that the situation is complicated and difficult to police? That mother might be making a straightforward and simple complaint that something is happening outside her door and she wants it to stop. Do you think that the policing response can sometimes be determined by more than the individual incident?
I would guess that it could be. I could not back that up with chapter and verse, but if the police have been called to the same place night after night, it would be against human nature for them not eventually to say that there is a more urgent case elsewhere. That is part of a downward spiral. If an area gets a label and a name, people do not have the same expectations of response because they have not had a response previously. That can lead others not to respond.
And people have borne consequences of the lack of response, because they have put their head above the parapet to complain but nothing appears to have happened. Therefore, they are disempowered from doing that in the future.
That is a major problem. In my previous job, people used to come to me regularly with reports and I would say that it was a matter for the police. I would say, "Why do you not report it to the police?" but they would respond, "I am not going near the police." It would be all right if I reported it for them, but they did not want to report it themselves.
Thank you very much. We are grateful to you for your attendance and for your written submissions. If you want to make further points, we would be delighted to hear from you.
Meeting continued in private until 13:05.