Chamber and committees

The Antisocial Behaviour etc(Scotland) Act 2004 defines antisocial behaviour (ASB) as acting in a manner, or pursuinga course of conduct that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress to at leastone person not of the same household as them. It therefore covers a wide range ofoffences, some of which are subject to criminal court procedures, and some to civilcourt procedures.Table4 (a) of the publication Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2004-05provides data on the numbers of people convicted of offences that can be consideredantisocial, for example vandalism, breach of the peace, fire-raising, drunkennessand other crimes and offences since 1995. This table can be accessed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/25104019/13.It is not possible to aggregate these figures to local authority level becausesome sheriff courts serve more than one local authority area.

The act provides for the useof a wide range of different measures to tackle ASB. The following table 1 providesa list of those measures in the act which are subject to court proceedings and whoseuse can be reported by local authority, together with data on their use over thelast two full years.

The following table 2 providesinformation on proven charges of breach of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) ineach sheriff court.

Table 1. Use of Measures in theAntisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act for Scotland and by Local Authority, 2004 from 1 October 2004 to 30 September 2006

Measure	1 October 2004 to 30 September 2005		1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006
	Scotland	Local Authority or Police Force area totals	Scotland	Local Authority or Police Force area totals
ASBOs on Conviction	34	Aberdeenshire 6, Dumfries and Galloway 2, Falkirk 3, Glasgow 3, Moray 3, Scottish Borders 16, West Lothian 1	31	Angus 1, Argyll and Bute 1, Dumfries and Galloway 5, Dundee City 2, Glasgow 4, Highland 1, North Ayrshire 1, Renfrewshire 1, Scottish Borders 13, South Lanarkshire 1, Western Isles 1
ASBOs for 12-15 year olds	1	Renfrewshire 1	5	Edinburgh 2, Dundee 1, Fife 1, Midlothian 1.
Closure of Premises	9	Fife 4, Lothian and Borders 1, Strathclyde 1, Tayside 3	12	Dumfries and Galloway 2, Fife 4, Grampian 4, Strathclyde 1, Tayside 1
Community reparation orders – piloted in specific areas	26	Dundee 10 Inverness 11 Greenock 5	50	Dundee 13, Inverness 27, Greenock 10
Restriction of liberty orders for young people under the age of 16	1	Glasgow 1	3	Dundee 1, Glasgow 1, Kilmarnock 1

Note: Statistics on ASBOs onconviction were originally sourced on the basis of local courts. The ASBOs on convictiondata presented in this table has been related approximately to the relevant localauthority area. Applications for Closure of Premises orders are signed off by therelevant police force – the figures are therefore collected by police force areaand not local authority.

Table2. Proven breaches of antisocial behaviour orders.

Offencesof Breach of ASBOs with a Charge Proved, by Sheriff Court, 2000-01 to2004-05

	Date of Sentence
Sheriff Court	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05
Aberdeen	1	15	16	12	34
Airdrie	-	-	3	2	8
Alloa	-	-	-	-	-
Arbroath	-	-	-	2	-
Ayr	-	-	-	1	1
Cupar	-	5	1	1	1
Dumbarton	-	1	-	-	1
Dumfries	-	-	-	-	2
Dundee	-	2	4	2	5
Dunfermline	-	1	5	6	10
Duns	-	-	-	-	1
Edinburgh	11	10	6	3	14
Elgin	-	-	-	-	-
Falkirk	-	-	-	-	2
Forfar	-	-	-	-	-
Fort William	-	-	-	-	3
Glasgow	-	6	2	1	9
Greenock	-	-	-	-	1
Haddington	-	-	-	-	7
Hamilton	-	-	-	4	6
Inverness	-	-	-	-	1
Jedburgh	-	-	-	1	4
Kilmarnock	-	-	-	-	4
Kirkcaldy	-	-	10	4	12
Kirkcudbright	-	-	-	-	2
Kirkwall	-	-	-	-	2
Lanark	-	-	-	-	1
Lerwick	-	-	-	-	3
Linlithgow	-	-	-	-	10
Oban	-	1	-	-	-
Paisley	-	-	-	-	2
Peebles	1	-	-	-	-
Perth	-	-	-	-	-
Peterhead	-	2	-	-	-
Selkirk	-	-	2	2	4
Stirling	-	-	-	2	3
Stranraer	-	-	-	-	-
Tain	-	-	2	-	5
Scotland	13	43	51	43	158

Source: Scottish Executive JusticeDepartment court proceedings database.

This information is not heldcentrally.

The information requested isgiven in table 19 of statistical bulletin Criminal Proceedingsin Scottish Courts 2004-05 published by the Scottish Executive in 2006, a copyof which is available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number39481).

The available information isgiven in the following tables.

Persons Proceeded Against inScottish Courts for Violent Crimes¹: Percentage with a Charge Proved,by Police Force, 1995-96 to 2004-05²

Police Force	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05
Central	79	73	76	82	76	66	74	83	76	80
Dumfries and Galloway	75	80	84	72	80	81	87	74	83	77
Fife	77	82	78	77	80	77	72	85	82	81
Grampian	82	88	87	78	80	78	82	83	84	82
Lothian and Borders	81	82	81	80	76	80	77	78	81	77
Northern	79	78	77	73	86	90	88	78	80	86
Strathclyde	70	69	72	75	73	70	75	75	75	75
Tayside	66	68	65	62	64	67	63	73	66	69
Scotland3	73	73	75	75	74	72	75	77	76	76

Notes:

1. Where main offence in the Scottish Executive Justice Department (SEJD) crime group 1 (non-sexual crimes ofviolence). Excludes persons against whom proceedings were started but dropped beforethey reached court.

2. There is some undercountingof acquittals in the data for 2002-03 to 2004-05. The percentage figures shown forthese years therefore include some estimated data.

3. Includes a small number whereforce is unknown.

Persons Proceeded Against inScottish Courts for all Crimes¹: Percentage with a Charge Proved, byPolice Force, 1995-96 to 2004-05

Police Force	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05
Central	88	86	86	87	86	87	89	90	88	89
Dumfries and Galloway	86	87	85	84	82	85	86	87	85	85
Fife	88	87	86	86	87	87	86	88	89	89
Grampian	90	90	91	91	88	88	88	89	89	89
Lothian and Borders	87	87	89	89	88	87	89	88	88	88
Northern	89	86	87	86	86	91	93	89	90	89
Strathclyde	79	76	78	79	77	75	78	78	78	78
Tayside	76	78	78	78	80	83	83	85	84	84
Scotland3	82	81	82	83	81	81	83	83	83	83

Note:

1. Where main offence in SEJDcrime groups 1-5 (non-sexual crimes of violence, crimes of indecency, crimes ofdishonesty, criminal damage, other crimes). Excludes persons against whom proceedingswere started but dropped before they reached court.

2. There is some undercountingof acquittals in the data for 2002-03 to 2004-05. The percentage figures shown forthese years therefore include some estimated data.

3. Includes a small number whereforce is unknown.

This information is providedin table 5.3 of Use of Antisocial BehaviourOrders in Scotland: Report of the 2004-05 Survey and table 4.1 of Use of Antisocial Behaviour Ordersin Scotland: Report of the 2005-06 Survey which are available on the Scottish Executive website.These data are based on research on theUse of Antisocial Behaviour Orders and are an estimate of the breach rate. Thisresearch suggests that nationally, 31% of orders were allegedly breached in 2005-06and 26% were breached in 2004-05. However, current data recording practices suggestthat the data is incomplete and the figures given are an underestimate of true breachrates.

To obtain more reliable dataon breach rate, further research on the outcome of ASBOs has been included in thenew criminal justice research programme and, subject to obtaining the necessaryaccess to records, is expected to begin within the next six months. This researchwould involve tracking a sample of orders to completion to examine breach rate andoutcome of breach hearings in more detail. It will also explore how breach datacan be routinely collected in future and make recommendations about improving currentmonitoring practices.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

On the 31 March 2006 therewere 116 prisoners sentenced to less than three months and 507 sentenced to betweenthree and less than six months. The informationprovided is the latest data which has been subject to audit review processes. Provisionalinformation for the 2006 calendar year is due to be published in the near future.

The Scottish Executive has reviewedevidence on the links between alcohol, crime and disorder to help inform the Nicholson Committee’s Review of LiquorLicensing Law in Scotland. The results of this review were published inLiquor Licensing and Public Disorder: Review of Literature on the Impact of Licensingand Other Controls, and Audit of Local Initiatives’ (2003) which can be accessed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47032/0025167.pdf.

Thisreport is available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 26524).

We are also aware of a Home Officereview of published evidence on the links between antisocial behaviour and drugs/alcoholmisuse.

Home Office RDS: (2004): Anti-social Behaviour: A collection of published evidence(Crime and Policing Group: Home Office Developmentand Practice Report), London, Home Office.

http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?c=458&aid=3429.

This report willshortly be available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number41856).

The Scottish Executive has reviewedevidence on the links between alcohol, crime and disorder to help inform the Nicholson Committee’s Review of LiquorLicensing Law in Scotland. The results of this review were published inLiquor Licensing and Public Disorder: Review of Literature on the Impact of Licensingand Other Controls, and Audit of Local Initiatives’ (2003) which can be accessed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47032/0025167.pdf.

This report is availablein the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 26524).

The extent of penalties appliedunder the arrangements for the Single Farm Payment Scheme (SFPS) and arising fromerrors in completing the Single Application Form etc are as follows:

2005: 362 Businesses - Total£581,918.98

2006: 320 Businesses - Total£676,184.69.

These figures should be viewedin the context that they have been applied within the framework created by EuropeanCommission regulations to deal with non-compliance with scheme conditions. The currentpenalty regime (which is very similar to that operated under the previous regime)is shaped to address over-declaration of land areas that would otherwise lead toinflated subsidy payments under SFPS (a land-based scheme). The correct declarationof land areas, therefore, is key to the Single Farm Payment Scheme and mydepartment supplies farm businesses with extensive information on how to completetheir applications forms and further guidance is available from local offices. Ultimately,however, it is the producers’ responsibility to ensure that applications for subsidyare completed properly.

Whilst it is unfortunate forthe businesses concerned that penalties have been applied, it is worth noting thatthe overwhelming majority of producers complete their applications properly. Thefigures for 2005 and 2006 shown above represent 1.7% and 1.5% respectively of allbusinesses submitting Single Application Forms and 0.14% and 0.15% respectivelyof the total amount claimed.

If any business feels that decisionsby the Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) on issues affecting theirsubsidy are wrong, they have recourse to the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations2000. This provides an accessible and affordable way for producers to challengeSEERAD’s decisions to refuse, reduce, or recover support and allow many appealsto be resolved without the need for expensive judicial involvement. The processconsists of three stages: an internal SEERAD review; a review by an external panel,and an appeal to the Scottish Land Court.

No signed PFI health projectshave been cancelled. The decision to use PFI is only taken following a full valuefor money study using accepted economic principles and a competitive procurementprocess.

The application of value formoney guidance has however resulted in a change in the proposed procurement routesfor a number of projects. The following projects were being considered for PFI fundingbut as a result of on-going value for money appraisal have been/are being pursuedthrough public funding:

Hawick Community Hospital

Refurbishment of the VictoriaHospital in Kirkcaldy

Redevelopment of the State Hospital.

This demonstrates that it isvalue for money which determines the procurement route and that this is kept underreview throughout the business case approval process.