A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour

Listen

A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings from an analysis of the responses received to the Scottish Executive's proposals to tackle anti-social behaviour, outlined in the consultation document Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. The document was published in June 2003, with responses invited up to the 11 th September 2003. The findings of the consultation responses will be fed into the development of the anti-social behaviour bill to be presented to the Scottish Parliament.

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

The consultation process comprised a number of elements including:

  • 31 Ministerial visits to constituencies
  • 39 Ministerial and officials meetings with key stakeholders
  • 342 written responses to the consultation document
  • 44 responses to a web-based questionnaire
  • Five surveys conducted by individual MSPs
  • Consultation events held by a range of organisations
  • Over 200 readers' letters to two newspapers which ran campaigns relating to anti-social behaviour

Evidence from all these elements of the consultation process was used in compiling this report. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques were employed.

THE EXPERIENCE OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN SCOTLAND

  • The consultation responses revealed that anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in many local communities and has devastating effects on the people who live in them. The extent of fear, anger and anxiety caused by anti-social behaviour was particularly apparent in the meetings with local constituents, individuals' written responses and the letters to the newspapers.
  • Anti-social behaviour was reported to take many forms, with the most serious relating to physical assault, verbal intimidation and harassment, vandalism, joy riding and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Many, although not all, of these incidents were reported to involve young people. There were also concerns about graffiti (including racist or otherwise offensive graffiti), noise nuisance, littering and fly-tipping. A number of other forms of anti-social behaviour were also identified.
  • The constituency meetings, newspaper letters and MSPs surveys indicated that local communities wished to see more effective action taken against the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and that offenders should take greater responsibility for their actions. The proposals outlined by the Scottish Executive were strongly supported in these elements of the consultation, including the need to protect the rights and needs of victims and witnesses. There was also a widespread desire for a greater police presence in local communities.

THE VIEWS OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Several consultation elements sought to gain the direct views of young people, given that many of the proposals relate to this age group. The young people's responses reveal a similar desire to see the issue of anti-social behaviour addressed, not least because many young people report being victims of such behaviour themselves. However, there were considerable doubts amongst young people about the likely effectiveness of many of the proposals, and also a great deal of resentment that the majority of law-abiding young people appeared to be being singled out and targeted by some of these proposals.

THEMES AND ISSUES

A number of general themes and issues emerged from the consultation responses. These included:

  • Recognition that there was an urgent need to address anti-social behaviour, including balancing the rights and responsibilities of individuals and communities, and ensuring that the needs of victims and witnesses were considered alongside the needs of offenders. In addition, there was strong support for engaging and empowering local communities in tackling anti-social behaviour.
  • Some calls for a more refined definition of anti-social behaviour and for additional work to build on the existing evidence of what is effective in reducing anti-social behaviour.
  • Calls for new measures to build on existing legislation and provision, including the Children's Hearing System and the police service. This included making sure adequate resources were given to existing measures.
  • A call for the strategy to address the multiple causes of anti-social behaviour, including preventative as well as punitive measures and linking the proposals into wider policy initiatives aimed at reducing social exclusion and tackling the root causes of anti-social behaviour.
  • Some concerns that the concept of 'community' did not adequately recognise the wide diversity of lifestyles and viewpoints within local areas. In particular concerns were raised about the impact of anti-social behaviour, and the proposals to tackle it, on minority groups. There were also widespread concerns about the extent to which the proposals could be seen as targeted at young people and tenants in the social-rented sector. It was widely believed that an anti-social behaviour strategy needed to tackle anti-social behaviour amongst all age groups and across all housing tenures.

RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS:

PROTECTING AND EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES

Anti-Social Behaviour Strategies

  • Introducing a statutory duty on registered social landlords to participate in the formulation of anti-social behaviour strategies was supported. The majority of respondents did not feel that a statutory duty needed to be introduced for other community planning partners.
  • More effective exchange of information was regarded as essential in the implementation of anti-social behaviour strategies, and a range of suggestions for taking this forward were provided, including the increasing use of protocols and shared databases, subject to adequate safeguards.

Community Reparation Orders (CROs)

  • The principle of community reparation was widely supported, although there were concerns about the exact nature and implementation of CROs.
  • There was general support for the introduction of individual as well as group CROs
  • A large majority of respondents rejected the imposition of a 21 years age limit on CROs.
  • There was support for introducing a statutory requirement (subject to safe-guards) on local authorities to consult with appropriate bodies in preparing reparation orders. Responses supported the involvement of the victim support organisations, community councils and the police as suggested in the consultation document. Individual responses suggested a large range of other organisations that may be consulted.

Protection for Victims and Witnesses of Anti-social Behaviour

  • There was recognition of the problems of fear and intimidation facing victims and witnesses. A range of specific recommendations for supporting victims and witnesses were put forward. The two most effective means of reassuring victims and encouraging witnesses to come forward were for timely and effective action to be seen to take place and for delays in the legal process to be reduced.
  • There was general support for increasing the use of professional witnesses, and for increasing the support infrastructure available to such witnesses. The use of community wardens as professional witnesses was more controversial, with conflicting interpretations about the likely impacts upon wardens' wider roles within local communities.

PREVENTING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR- CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

  • Issues concerns raised about the proposed measures in this section included building the evidence base as to their effectiveness, ensuring that they were compatible with existing provisions, providing sufficient resources for their implementation and clarifying the process and impacts of sanctions in the event that these measures were breached.
  • Extending anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and electronic monitoring to under-16s were particularly contentious issues.
  • There was general support for maintaining the primacy of the Children's Hearing System in regard to these proposals.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

  • There was majority support for extending the use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), particularly where these were used at an early stage of intervention, were voluntary, were complimented by appropriate support mechanisms and emphasised constructive activities.
  • There was majority support for ABCs to be used within the Children's Hearing System and schools, where similar measures are already widely used, and indeed in other circumstances relating to anti-social behaviour in local communities.
  • The extent to which ABCs should be linked into other measures such as Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) was disputed. Some responses argued that without such linkages ABCs would prove ineffective, but there were equal concerns about how any sanctions for breaching ABCs may lead to disproportionate punitive measures against the individuals involved.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) for Under-16s

  • There was widespread recognition of the serious implications of this proposal. Although many responses were opposed to this measure, there was a small majority in favour of extending ASBOs to under-16s. However, this support was based on ASBOs being used as a last resort after all other measures had failed, adequate support packages being implemented, and careful consideration given to the processes and implications of any breaches. Clarification was sought about how this measure related to existing legislation such as the European Convention of Human Rights.
  • There was widespread concern about the capacity of registered social landlords to access sufficient information about the full circumstances surrounding an individual before applying for an ASBO, and there was support for the Children's Hearing System having a central role in any applications.
  • The majority of responses believed that a full evaluation of the Youth Court pilot in Hamilton should be conducted before considering whether this could be utilised in relation to breaches of ASBOs for undr-16s. Responses were divided about whether in principle the Youth Court model was appropriate in these circumstances.
  • There was unanimous agreement about the importance of ensuring that full information about the circumstances of each young person and family was available in regard to ASBO applications. The involvement of the Children's Hearing System, social work departments, multi-agency working and wider use of protocols were identified as the key factors in ensuring that this information was made available.

Greater Use of Reparation in the Children's Hearing System

  • There was widespread support for the greater use of reparation, and consensus that such reparation should take into account the wishes and circumstances of both victims and offenders.

Electronic Monitoring of Under-16s

  • This was a very contentious proposal. Many responses were opposed to electronic monitoring of under-16s. The small majority of responses in favour of the measure believed that it should only be used as a last resort in extreme cases and should be subject to substantial support and review systems.
  • There was particular division about the suggestion of electronic monitoring as an alternative to secure accommodation. For some responses, this was the sole basis for their support of electronic monitoring as a final alternative, but other responses argued that the welfare grounds on which secure accommodation orders were made, and concerns about the home environment of the young people involved, meant that electronic monitoring was not a viable alternative to secure accommodation.

Extending Restricted Liberty Orders to Under-16s

  • This measure was also contentious. There was majority support for this measure, but again there was a strong emphasis on the constructive, rather than merely punitive, elements of these orders and the provision of adequate support structures.

Parenting Orders

  • The introduction of Parenting Orders was also contentious, although a small majority supported their introduction. Those in favour saw them as a useful mechanism of last resort where the required levels of parental responsibility had not been achieved through other mechanisms, to the detriment of a child's welfare. Other responses believed that such measures reduced the responsibility of both the child and wider society, encouraged a blaming culture that did not take account of the full circumstances, and would lead to ineffective punitive sanctions rather than the holistic support-based interventions which were required.
  • There was widespread support for the Children's Hearing System having a central role in the Parenting Order process, and a common belief that the importance of the Children's Hearing System should be retained in relation to any powers given to local authorities, courts and Reporters.
  • There was support for the grounds for Parenting Orders set out in the consultation document, and a widespread belief that the welfare of the child should always be the paramount consideration in any application for a Parenting Order.
  • The majority of responses supported failure to ensure attendance at school being grounds for a Parenting Order, although it was strongly argued that account should be taken of existing measures and also the various factors, other than parental failure, which may account for non-attendance at school.
  • The Children's Hearing System and local authority social work departments were seen as the most important mechanisms for ensuring that all the relevant information about parents was taken into account in the application for a Parenting Order.

Local Authority Accountability

  • There was universal support for the desirability of local authorities ensuring that supervision orders were carried out and that adequate education provision was offered to all children. Although the measures proposed to ensure the identification of any failures in this regard were supported, it was argued by a large majority of responses that such failures arose primarily from a lack of resources, in particular the current shortage of social workers, and that this issue needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. There were also concerns that these new measures should not lead to deterioration in the working relationship between agencies.

SAFE, SECURE AND ATTRACTIVE COMMUNITIES

Litter, Fly-Tipping and Abandoned Vehicles

  • There was strong support for giving the police powers to award Fixed Penalty Fines for litter offences. The majority of responses did not favour giving this power to community wardens. Others suggested that it should be for local authorities to determine whether wardens should be given this power according to local circumstances.
  • Although many responses believed that local authorities had sufficient powers to clear litter, there was widespread recognition that these powers were not being utilised as effectively as they may be, due to resources and other issues. Many responses also supported local authorities having further powers to clear litter from private land.
  • The levels of charges proposed for covering local authorities costs for removing, storing and disposing of abandoned vehicles ranged from 55 to 250. There was general agreement that such charges should include the true costs incurred by local authorities' plus an additional amount to act as a deterrent. The main concern relating to abandoned vehicles was the present difficultly in establishing ownership and responsibility for abandoned cars.
  • It was generally believed that the present regulations governing the removal of vehicles causing an obstruction were sufficient, but that such processes could be fast tracked, and the powers in relation to vehicles not on a highway but causing an obstruction should be clarified.
  • Simplified means, including Fixed Penalty Fines, for penalising fly-tipping were generally welcomed, although again it was felt this power should be given to the police and local authority environmental health officers rather than community wardens. Reponses argued that the main issue with fly-tipping remained the difficulty of actually catching and prosecuting offenders.
  • There was almost universal support for the proposals to give local authorities powers to examine waste documents and to double the fine limit for fly-tipping to 40,000. It was argued that increasing the likelihood of offenders being caught and courts imposing more severe penalties were essential if such measures were to be effective.

Graffiti

  • There was a clear majority of responses in favour of banning the sale of spray paint to under-16s. However, concerns were raised about the effectiveness of such a ban and how it would be implemented and enforced. Concerns were also raised about the legitimate use of spray paint by under-16s and the need to address other means by which spray paint could be obtained.
  • Further powers for local authorities to remove graffiti from privately owned property were welcomed. Further consideration was requested about how such measures could be used and what responsibilities and costs would accrue to private owners. The powers were particularly supported in relation to racist, sectarian, homophobic or otherwise offensive graffiti where swift removal was regarded as essential.

Noise Nuisance

  • The responses recognised that noise nuisance was a considerable problem in many local communities and that local authorities should be enabled, rather than required, to implement a night-time noise service.
  • Responses generally welcomed environmental health officers and the police, having powers to implement Fixed Penalty Notices relating to domestic noise nuisance, although community wardens having this power was not generally supported. It was also noted that health and safety issues would need to be addressed, as would the current shortage of environmental health officers in some local authorities.
  • The majority of responses believed that extending the service to 24 hours should only be required where it was proportionate to need and that local authorities should have the discretion to assess this requirement in their own areas. There were significant resource and staff conditions implications for such an extension of these services.
  • The overall consensus of responses was that the statutory proof relating to noise nuisance should remain as it is, although some suggestions for increasing flexibility and effectiveness were put forward.

Anti-social Behaviour and Housing

  • Many responses were concerned that the proposals paid inadequate attention to addressing the problems of anti-social behaviour in the owner-occupied housing sector.
  • There was widespread support for increasing local authorities' powers in relation to anti-social behaviour in the private-rented sector, both through a system of regulation and the imposition of sanctions. Concerns were raised about the resource implications for local authorities, the effectiveness of the various measures, and the need to clarify the duties and responsibilities of local authorities, private landlords, registered social landlords and individual tenants.
  • Responses were divided about the appropriateness of reward schemes for tenants. Those supporting such schemes argued they provided incentives for desirable behaviour and offered official recognition and resources to the large majority of law-abiding tenants. Those opposed argued that such schemes were patronising and divisive in that they: concentrated only on the public housing sector, rewarded behaviour which should be expected in any case and may further the disengagement of those involved in anti-social behaviour.
  • It was widely believed that the implementation of tenant reward schemes should be left to the discretion of individual landlords.
  • Responses were similarly divided about whether existing provisions in legislation on housing and homelessness linked to ASBOs should apply to ASBOs involving under-16s. Those supporting the link argued that it was essential to ensure the responsibility of parents, to provide for effective sanctions and to protect wider communities. Those opposed to the link believed that it could contribute to homelessness, placing additional burdens on local authorities, and would increase the exclusion of families facing difficulties rather than reducing incidences of anti-social behaviour.

Fireworks

The small numbers of responses referring to fireworks backed the Scottish Executive's support for the Westminster Private Member's Bill addressing this issue.

Housing Benefit

The small numbers of responses addressing the issue of linking housing benefit payments to anti-social behaviour were mostly opposed to any such measures.

EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

Fixed Penalty Notices for Anti-social Behaviour

  • There was overall support for extending the use of Fixed Penalty Notices levied by the police to a range of low-level, anti-social behaviour and nuisance offending, although further clarification of what behaviour would be covered by such notices was sought.
  • The majority of respondents did not believe that such penalties should be imposed on under-16s due to their lack of independent income and the need to ensure the responsibility of the young person, rather than the parents, for their behaviour.

Dispersal of Groups

  • A majority of responses believed that the police already had sufficient powers to tackle disorderly behaviour amongst groups. It was felt that more effective use of such powers, related to police resources and presence in local communities, was a more appropriate approach to addressing this issue. However, it was recognised by many respondents that the behaviour of groups did pose a significant problem in some areas.
  • A similarly large majority of responses did not believe that it would be useful to extend police powers in respect of groups of young people in the way proposed in the consultation document. This was based on concerns about the potential for disproportionate targeting of young people in relation to anti-social behaviour, the potentially negative impact upon police relationships with young people and the risk of contravention of international legislation.

Making Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) more Effective

  • The majority of responses believed that the power to apply for ASBOs should be limited to local authorities and registered social landlords (in consultation with the police). Those supporting this limit argued that it was required due to the link between ASBOs and tenancy. However, a minority of responses suggested that the powers should be extended to other groups.
  • There was widespread support for a statutory power of arrest for breach of an ASBO.
  • The majority of responses were in favour of courts having the power to impose an ASBO on conviction of a criminal offence, where there is evidence of persistent anti-social behaviour. This was believed to offer greater protection to victims and local communities, and could be usefully applied in conjunction with other support measures. Responses were concerned that any such power would have to ensure that the full information about individual circumstances was taken into account.
  • Although the majority of responses were in favour of courts having the power to grant ASBOs in related civil proceedings, a number of concerns were raised. These included clarifying how an ASBO would relate to the outcome of other proceedings, for example eviction, blurring the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings and the fact that such measures would create inconsistencies in the treatment of social housing tenants and other citizens.
  • There was widespread support for ASBOs extending beyond a local authority area if required. It was also argued however that such extensions should only apply in specific circumstances, and that Scotland-wide ASBOs would need to have full regard to the issue of proportionality in human rights legislation. The need for a national ASBO register to make this effective was also raised.

Licensed Premises - Police Powers

  • There was some confusion about what sections of the legislation the proposals were actually addressing. Several other responses believed that full account of the findings of the Nicholson Committee should be taken before these proposals were introduced.
  • Beyond these concerns, there was very widespread support for police having the same rights of entry to, and for authorities having the same right to order the closure of, off-licenses and registered clubs as they have to licensed premises. The majority of responses also believed that there should continue to be no right to object to a closure notice for a license holder, although a minority argued that such a right should be created.
  • There was widespread agreement that there should be clarification of police powers to close licensed premises in relation to disorder within their vicinity.

Closure Notices

  • The majority of responses supported a new power for the court to order the closure of premises at the centre of illegal activity or anti-social behaviour. However, although many respondents argued that this power should be given to the police as proposed, a number of other respondents, including police organisations, believed that the power should be given to local authorities.
  • Responses were equally divided about whether such powers should apply to all premises or be limited to non-occupied/non-residential accommodation. Those supporting a universal coverage argued that this would be essential for consistency and the effectiveness of such powers. Those who believed the power should be limited to non-residential premises were concerned about the likely increases in homelessness, impacts on local authorities and how such powers would relate to existing tenancy agreements.
  • There was a general consensus that police powers should be limited in this area. There was also a widespread request for greater clarification and consultation about how these powers would be applied, particularly in relation to occupied residential premises.

CONCLUSIONS

  • It is clear from this consultation exercise that anti-social behaviour is a major concern affecting many local communities in Scotland, and that it has serious detrimental consequences for individuals (victims, witnesses and perpetrators), families, local communities, organisations and agencies.
  • There was a widespread welcome for the Scottish Executive's focus on tackling this issue, based on an understanding that the current situation is untenable.
  • Many responses, from local communities and individuals in particular, supported both the broad direction of the Scottish Executive's approach to tackling anti-social behaviour and the specific proposals outlined in the consultation process.
  • Generally most of the specific proposals were supported by a majority of respondents. There was particularly strong support for proposals including: new measures to increase the effectiveness of ASBOs; providing individual support orders linked to ASBOs for under-16s; extending police powers in relation to licensed premises; procedures for closure notices, doubling the fine for fly-tipping and giving local authorities the power to examine waste transfer documents.
  • However, a number of measures were contentious, for example, extending anti-social behaviour orders to under-16s, introducing electronic monitoring for under-16s, establishing parenting orders, tenant reward schemes and extending closure notice to residential premises. Concerns about each of these proposals were raised in a significant number of responses.
  • Some proposals were opposed by a majority of respondents. These included giving community wardens powers in relation to issuing fixed penalties, having an upper age limit for Community Reparation Orders, issuing fixed penalties for under-16s and increasing police powers in relation to the dispersal of groups, particularly young people.
  • There was a clear distinction between the views of individual respondents and organisations in relation to a number of specific proposals. Two such examples of this divide were the issuing of fixed penalties to under-16s and giving the police further powers to disperse groups. A majority of individuals supported both these proposals, whilst a majority of organisations were opposed to these measures. This reflects a general pattern of individuals being more supportive of the proposals overall than organisations.
  • Many of the concerns about specific proposals reflect broader concerns about the direction and tone of the consultation document. These concerns include the view that the document focuses on reactive, punitive issues of enforcement and that any such measures require an equal, if not greater, emphasis upon holistic, preventative, diversionary and supportive measures.
  • This reflects a general concern that the proposals need to be more clearly framed within wider social inclusion, health, education, regeneration and homelessness policy initiatives undertaken by the Scottish Executive, which will address the structural factors contributing to anti-social behaviour.
  • There was also considerable concern that the proposals could be seen as targeting measures against particular groups including young people, social housing tenants and residents of deprived communities. It was strongly argued that for an overall approach to anti-social behaviour to be effective, sufficient measures needed to be developed to address anti-social behaviour in all age groups, economic groups and housing tenures throughout Scotland.
  • The issue of resources was central to many of the consultation responses. This involved respondents seeking reassurances that adequate resources should be provided for agencies and organisations to implement any additional measures and powers effectively, in particular to facilitate the multi-agency working which will be required to successfully tackle anti-social behaviour. This issue also involved a perception by some that more effective implementation, including resourcing, of existing provisions and measures may have the greatest impact on addressing anti-social behaviour. In this regard, providing adequate resources to the police, the Children's Hearing System, voluntary organisations and a wide range of local community projects addressing anti-social behaviour was seen as central to success.
  • The responses emphasised that as anti-social behaviour policy continues to evolve, there is a need for an evidence-based approach in which the success of particular measures is adequately evaluated and monitored, dissemination of good practice is widespread and continuing consultation takes place.
  • Finally, the responses reveal the tensions between different viewpoints in relation to the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families, communities and agencies. The desire for more effective enforcement and punitive sanctions expressed by many respondents is not easily reconciled with concerns, expressed by support organisations and others, over the needs of individual offenders and their families. The spectrum of views offered in this consultation process reveals the difficulties of addressing the problem of anti-social behaviour in Scotland. What unites the responses however, is the desire for anti-social behaviour to be recognised and tackled.

Page updated: Tuesday, April 04, 2006