Anti Social Behaviour Legislation

Pauline Bryan

Antisocial behaviour is an issue that is being used by the Scottish Executive to prove it is in touch with "decent hardworking families"*. Any opposition to its proposals is dismissed as coming from people who are out of touch with the real experiences of working class people. It is the MSPs who support the measure that know what it is like to live in areas disrupted by unruly young people. How do they know this? Their constituents come and tell them.

We must have real sympathy with these MSPs because, as anyone who has been active in local politics soon understands, people who make direct contact with their elected representatives can often be persistent and want immediate action. Pointing out that much of what constitutes antisocial behaviour is not criminal and is not easily or quickly changed by political intervention does not go down well with often justifiably angry voters.

The Scottish Executive wants to be seen to be doing something. They want something they can point to as their contribution to solving the problem. Who know who or what they will blame when in five or ten years the problem remains unsolved or even worse?

The Bill defines antisocial behaviour if person A acts in a manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress; or pursues a course of conduct that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress to at least one person who is not of the same household as person A. In clarification it states that a course of conduct must involve at least two occasions. It will give police the power to direct individuals to leave a defined area for up to 24 hours and to return young people who are resident home.

The approach contained within the Bill involves a number of confusions and contradictions, particularly when in it comes to dealing with young people. Firstly, the terms is used to cover a whole spectrum of behaviour from serious crime such as drug dealing and carrying weapons to relatively low level problems such as a group of youths kicking a football about. They all get lumped together as within the single term "antisocial".

Secondly, there is an assumption that people being on the street makes streets dangerous. The very presence of a group of kids may be alarming and if these youngsters were in their homes instead of on the streets other, people would be safer.

Thirdly, the Bill does much to reinforce the idea that certain people are beyond the pale. Suggesting that the social inclusion agenda does not apply to young people or people whose behaviour is disapproved of by their neighbours. It encourages the idea that there is a set of acceptable life styles and that those not fitting these are unacceptable.

At a recent Labour Party meeting the term antisocial behaviour was used by Cathy Jamieson, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice to describe the carrying of knives with intent to harm. At the same meeting Patricia Ferguson the Minister for Parliamentary Business, gave a different example which she used to demonstrate local community support for tackling problems with young people's antisocial behaviour.

Patricia's story involved a procession by primary school children through a local housing scheme. Older children had bought eggs and threw them at the procession. Police officers intervened and were giving the older children a telling off when the "grannies" (of both the primary and older children) demanded that the police make arrests. She told this story to demonstrate the anger within local communities at petty vandalism by young people. But this story also identifies some of the difficulties with tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. In this case the behaviour was carried out against members of the same family. The world is not neatly divided between good families and bad families. Many people have close family members, particularly teenage boys, who have been involved with the police, mainly for relatively petty offences. Parents often struggle to understand why their son, daughter has "come off the rails". The "grannies" in Patrica's example would no doubt see their own families as being "decent and hardworking".

A further issue thrown up is that the police cannot always accede to the demands of local communities if their action would be disproportionate to the crime. If you are, in the words of the Bill "alarmed" by someone's behaviour it does not necessarily mean that there was an intention to alarm. Young boys are notorious for finding things funny that to other people are intensely irritating. Irritation may then be a small step away from distressing and therefore being actionable under Bill.

Just recently on BBC Radio Scotland, Bill Patterson read stories about growing up in Dennistoun and the unthinkingly annoying behaviour of him and his pals. The behaviour of young people today hasn't changed as much as people's reaction to it. Whereas Bill Patterson's neighbours were angry, today they may be genuinely frightened. The behaviour is similar but the reaction is different.

Our streets have always been potentially dangerous places. There can be people on the look out for vulnerable passers by and would take the chance to rob them or attack them. But inner city streets have benefited from the presence of many people all going about their various businesses. There is a concept that is the antithesis of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, it is that we should trust in the kindness of strangers, rather than see them as potentially threatening. The danger of the antisocial behaviour bill and other government policies is that they create the notion that the only safe street is an empty street. But there is a much stronger threat in being alone in a street than being amongst various people passing through it.

The best way to create safe public places is to make them attractive so that many different people use them for many different things. Such streets transform the threatening stranger into someone who helps guarantee your safety. The very act of walling off areas and isolating people in their homes and cars makes their neighbourhood potentially more dangerous.

Margaret Curran, Communities Minister stated recently, "Let no-one tell communities that their fundamental rights to live in safety and security is too basic or too difficult to deserve our attention". In saying this she must know that she is setting up a straw argument. Who has said that the right to live in safety and security is too basic to take seriously? But, yes, many people and many organisations with vast experience in working with young people say it is difficult - too difficult to be dealt with by heavy handed policing.

Many people now acknowledge that policing methods have contributed to the disaffection of young people in various towns and cities. Following severe confrontations between police and young men from the Asian community, a Bradford police inspector confirmed that criticism made of the police was valid; they had treated residents "with hostility and contempt". The experience of stop and search policies resulted in a generation of young black Londoners growing up with constant petty harassment from the police. The police service recognised that all this did was create extreme alienation and non-cooperation that made their job even more difficult.

These concerns have been echoed by Tom Buchan Chief Superintendent of Police in Lanarkshire when he said, "I would think long and hard before I would put it [the power to disperse groups of young people] in use. It is not addressing the issue."

The consultation on the draft Bill received a large number of responses. The report indicates that "Over 80 percent of respondents to this question believed that the police already had sufficient powers to deal with antisocial behaviour amongst groups. Over two thirds of responses were also opposed to the extension of police powers in respect of groups of under 16s as proposed in the consultation document. The majority of respondents expressed the view that the police had sufficient powers already."

Examples of the responses include:
The Scottish Police Federation argued that the vast majority of young people were "law abiding socially responsible and a credit to themselves and their parents". They stated that much antisocial behaviour was perpetrated by a small number of persistent offenders, who could make the lives of local communities misery, but suggested that early intervention, enough secure accommodation places and rehabilitative schemes were required to address this issue. Further, the Federation stressed the importance of the police working with young people to build relationships and trust and to re-establish respect for authority".

The trade union UNISON made the following comments "We believe that the proposed Bill represents a shift in the Executive's approach to antisocial behaviour, away from social inclusion and towards a more punitive response. In doing so, UNISON Scotland believes that the Executive is in danger of neglecting the fact that better outcomes for children and young people are more regularly obtained by preventative measures."

Save the Children stated:
"Some children and young people are engaged in antisocial behaviour which is unacceptable. In such circumstances, it is likely that the child or young person is experiencing difficulties in their life and requires a variety of interventions from a range of agencies."
"The consultation paper gives a brief definition of antisocial behaviour. This is open to interpretation and does not provide sufficient clarity for those enforcing the new legislation. Our concern is that different understandings of what is antisocial behaviour could lead to greater conflict between adults and young people."

Margaret Curran dismissed these types of comments with her statement
"We think that the key people we have to listen to are the communities who are on the receiving end of antisocial behaviour. I think some of the agencies in Scotland have to do that as well."

Saying this, she dismissed the collective comments of organisations with many years' experience of working with young people. These organisations have a genuine commitment to young people and the communities in which they live.

As said earlier we can have some sympathy for MSPs torn between the anger of the constituents and the fact that there is no easy answer to this problem. They could however look in an entirely different direction. This would take political courage and leadership. They could demand the use of public resources to regenerate local economies, to create jobs not schemes, and improve local amenities. This would of course bring them head to head with the New Labour Government, whose behaviour is by any definition antisocial.

*as quoted from a document presented to Scottish Labour Party Conference in February this year.