|
U.K. Lords Pass Tony Blair's Terrorism Bill on Third Attempt
March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, passed Prime Minister Tony Blair's Terrorism Bill having previously rejected it twice.
The opposition Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties had objected to a clause in the bill that makes it illegal to glorify terrorism, voting against the legislation as recently as Feb. 28. They argued the proposed crime was too vague to stand up in court.
Conservative spokesman Christopher Kingsland said there was no point delaying the bill further and that Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given an undertaking next year to review all the measures on terrorism currently on the statute book. ``We need this bill,'' he said.
The Terrorism Bill saw Blair suffer his first ever defeat in the House of Commons in November when lawmakers refused to allow police to hold suspects for 90 days without charge.
The Commons, where Blair's Labour Party has a majority, backed most of the measures in the bill.
The Lords is also deadlocked with the Commons over identity cards, where the upper chamber has four times refused to pass a bill that would force everyone applying for a passport to apply for an ID card. Around 80 percent of Britons have passports, and opposition parties argue this amounts to making the cards compulsory. - bloomberg.com
|
|
|
UK anti-terror bill becomes law
Jeannie Shawl at 10:07 AM ET
[JURIST] The UK Terrorism Act 2006 [PDF text; Home Office backgrounder] became law Thursday as the legislation received royal assent. A vote in the UK House of Lords last week cleared the way [JURIST report] for the bill to move forward, as the Lords backed down on their objections to including "glorification" of terrorism among the crimes covered in the new legislation. The legislation also authorizes up up to 28-days detention without trial [JURIST report] for terrorism suspects, the longest allowed by any western European country. The majority of the law's provisions will actually come into force on April 13 [press release].
The anti-terror legislation was presented for royal assent along with two other pieces of security-related legislation: the Identity Cards Act [PDF text; JURIST report] and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act [PDF text].
Read Clarke's full press release.[below]
|
Three new Acts become law
30 March 2006
The Terrorism Act 2006, the Identity Cards Act and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act all received royal assent today, becoming law.
Terrorism Act 2006
Powerful new measures in the Terrorism Act 2006 will help the police and law enforcement agencies tackle the threat of terrorism. The Terrorism Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence to:
- encourage terrorism, including to glorify terrorism
- disseminate terrorist publications, including by extremist bookshops and through internet activity
- prepare or plan to commit a terrorist act, or to assist others to do so
- give or receive terrorist training, or to attend a terrorist training camp
More information about the Terrorism Act 2006.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act enables the Government to implement new immigration and asylum measures. Provisions in the Act will:
- restrict appeals for those refused entry to the UK to work or study. The UK will continue to welcome to the UK genuine migrants who meet the transparent and objective criteria set out under the Government's Points-Based System for managed migration
- tackle illegal working through a new civil penalties scheme for employers by introducing fines of up to £2,000 per illegal employee, custodial sentences of up to two-years and unlimited fines for those found knowingly to use or exploit illegal workers
- strengthen our borders by allowing data sharing between the Immigration Service, police and customs, as part of the e-Borders programme. It will support the global roll-out of fingerprinting visa applicants by giving powers to Immigration Officers to verify identity against biometrics contained in travel documents
- respond to new security threats by denying asylum to terrorists; improving our ability to strip citizenship from and deport those who pose a serious risk to the UK's interests; and speed up the appeals process in national security deportation cases.
Identity Cards Act
The Identity Cards Act includes measures to help Britain meet the challenges of the 21st century. The National Identity Scheme will provide all UK residents aged over 16 with a universal, highly secure means for safeguarding their identity. The Identity Card Act covers the whole of the UK and:
- establishes the National Identity Register
- provides powers to issue identity cards
- ensures checks can be made against other databases to confirm an applicant's identity and guard against fraud
- sets out what information would be held and what safeguards would be in place
- enables public and private sector organisations to verify a person's identity by checking against the National Identity Register, with the person's consent, to validate their identity before providing services
- includes enabling powers so that in the future access to specified public services could be linked to the production of a valid identity card
- provides for it to become compulsory to register and be issued with a card, including penalties against failure to register
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said:
'I am extremely pleased that three crucial pieces of legislation for my department have today reached the statute books. I have always made clear that there is a balance to be struck between the rights and freedoms of individuals and the security of all our citizens.
'This new legislation together will allow us to uphold our democratic right to freedom of speech and to free movement within the United Kingdom, as well as encouraging managed migration which will benefit the UK economy. At the same time, it will strengthen our ability to keep our borders secure, tackle illegal working and to go about our day to day business safely and secure in the knowledge that people are who they say they are.'
|
|
what is Royal Assent?
When a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages, it receives Royal Assent from the Queen. Royal Assent nowadays is generally declared to both Houses by their Speakers and is listed in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in Parliament.
After this the bill becomes part of the law of the land and is known as an Act of Parliament.
Royal Assent was last given in person by the Sovereign in 1854. The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland.
Usually, public bills which have not been passed by the end of a parliamentary session are lost. Following a recommendation of the House of Commons Modernisation Committee it was agreed that, in certain circumstances, public bills may be 'carried-over' from one session to the next, in the same way that private and hybrid bills may be. The first public bill to be treated in this way was the Financial Services and Markets Bill 1998/99. Changes to standing orders in the 2002-03 parliamentary session allow for more public bills to be carried over in this way (in particular, those which have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in either House).
|
Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
On 9th February, 2004 the government announced its intention to create, by 2006, a Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) that will incorporate NCIS, the National Crime Squad and elements of HM Customs and Excise and the UK Immigration Service. The activities of the new Agency will be intelligence led. NCIS' performance objectives and targets, and its 'Quality Programme' for development, have been reviewed in the light of the announcement. The performance objectives and targets that follow in this plan therefore include priorities for corporate development that will ensure NCIS brings a strong and efficient intelligence capability to the new agency. | 
|
|
"aaah that's how Bill Clinton made his fortune!"
|
Blair shown guns knives & drugs
Handguns, designer gear and jewellery taken from major criminals were shown to Tony Blair today as he launched a new crime-fighting agency.
Soca - the Serious Organised Crime Agency - will focus on the so-called "Mr Bigs" who make fortunes from drugs, money laundering, fraud and counterfeiting.
The PM went with Soca's Bill Hughes and Home Secretary Charles Clarke to see some of the goods which have been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
There will be around 4000 staff, with a budget of more than £400 million a year. The agency's chairman, Sir Stephen Lander, was once head of MI5, and its director-general, Bill Hughes, is the former head of the National Crime Squad. SOCA will work internationally across 'operational boundaries' from sec
|
|
New crime agency faces staff shortage [1 day after it was formed]
04 April 2006 11:47
The head of the UK's new Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) has admitted he does not have the budget to hire the trained financial investigators necessary to fight organised crime.
At the agency's official launch yesterday, chairman Sir Stephen Lander told the Financial Times he has already asked the Home Office for extra money to attract forensic accountants and investigators from the private sector.
He said adequately trained financial investigators were in "quite short supply and market driven”, with the £34,000 maximum salaries of Soca officers comparing poorly with the £90,000 top range salary that financial forensics experts can earn in the private sector.
"We are short of some skills in the financial investigation area... we haven't got them in the numbers we need," he said.
The majority of Soca's 4,200 staff have been drawn from two police bodies - the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Most of these employees are on similar salaries to those they were earning in their previous jobs.
But the agency is well short of its target of 400 investigators to focus specifically on financial crimes.
Soca has been set up as an FBI-style agency to counter criminal gangs involved in activities such as drug dealing, human trafficking and fraud.
- personneltoday.com
|
|
Terror suspect wins rights battle
Apr 12 2006
The first British citizen to have a control order imposed on him as a terror suspect by the Home Secretary has won a High Court declaration that the Government's anti-terror laws are "incompatible" with human rights laws because they have denied him a right to a fair hearing.
The terror suspect, referred to as MB, was made subject to the order, which involves a form of house arrest, by the Home Secretary in September 2005. His lawyers argued the order could not stand because aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) breached his human rights.
But Mr Justice Sullivan allowed their legal challenge. It was the first of 12 orders which are coming up for review by the High Court. Mr Justice Sullivan said the control order system was "conspicuously unfair". He said: "To say that the Act does not give the respondent in this case ... 'a fair hearing' in the determination of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be an understatement.
"The court would be failing in its duty under the Human Rights Act, a duty imposed upon the court by Parliament, if it did not say, loud and clear that the procedure under the Act whereby the court merely reviews the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision to make the order upon the basis of the material available to him at that early stage are conspicuously unfair."
The judge said the Government had tried to apply a "thin veneer of legality" to its controversial anti-terror laws, which allow suspected terrorists to be put under a loose form of house arrest on the say-so of the Home Secretary.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act did not "disguise the reality" that suspects' rights were being determined by ministers. Last month the Home Secretary said there were currently 11 people on control orders, including three Britons. However it is thought a 12th person has been handed an order since the last official update.
icstaines
|
|
UK: Control orders unlawful, Amnesty reaction
Amnesty International today (12 April) reacted to a High Court declaration that the Government's anti-terror laws are "incompatible" with human rights laws.
Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock said: "The High Court is entirely right to insist that everyone in the UK issued with a Control Order must have a fair hearing - and that this right is denied by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. "The Act gives the Home Secretary the power to place massive restrictions on people's liberty, without charge or trial, based on secret evidence that they cannot see and cannot refute. "If someone is suspected of a crime, they should be charged and given a fair trial. Depriving them of their liberty on the basis of secret evidence is not an alternative."
|
|
UK: New anti-terror laws come into force
Published: 13 April 2006
An anti-terror measure introduced after the July 7 bombings in London came into force today amid warnings it could make the country less safe.
Under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is now a criminal offence to "glorify" terrorism in the hope of encouraging others to carry out such atrocities.
But critics of the new law say it is so widely drawn it could curtail free speech and put legitimate political protesters in danger of being prosecuted.
The latest weapons in the armoury for fighting the terror threat were finally approved by Parliament last month following a bitter battle with the House of Lords over glorification. The element was opposed by both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and at one stage survived a Labour backbench rebellion in the Commons by just one vote. The Terrorism Act 2006 also outlaws the distribution of terrorist publications, planning or preparing an attack and giving or receiving terrorism training. It makes trespass on nuclear sites a terrorist offence and allows organisations involved in all such activities to be banned.
Human rights group Liberty said it was concerned the law would outlaw "passionate speech" and criminalise non-violent political parties and "make Britain less safe by silencing dissent". Policy director Gareth Crossman said: "These new powers make us not only less free, we are also less safe when we drive dissent underground and alienate minorities. "Swept up in this new anti-terror safety net could be those who protest against dictators, like Zimbabwe's Mugabe, or North Korean dissidents. "
Another highly contentious element of the new laws - the ability to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 28 days - has not yet been put into effect. The Government had wanted to increase the limit from 14 days to 90 but 49 Labour MPs helped vote out that plan - Tony Blair's first Commons defeat at the hands of his own backbenchers.
Consultation with police chiefs over the doubling of the present limit are continuing - and Home Secretary Charles Clarke has made clear he would still like to extend it further.
The glorification proposal was introduced in the immediate wake of the July 7 atrocities as part of the Prime Minister's package of measures to clamp down on "preachers of hate".
Mr Blair has said it would allow "far stronger action" against people who indirectly incited terrorism - such as those carrying placards praising the London suicide bombings at protests in the capital against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
It would send out a "signal of strength", he said. - news.independent.co.uk
|
| US-style terror alerts for UK
MPs to recommend clearer public warnings in wake of London bombings
Richard Norton-Taylor and Oliver Burkeman in New York
Monday April 17, 2006 - The Guardian
A cross-party committee investigating the background to the July 7 bombings is expected to recommend a transparent official public warning system for the threat posed by terrorist attacks. It would be similar to the kind that has proved controversial in America.
The idea, which is likely to be one of the conclusions in the intelligence and security committee's annual report next month, has caused consternation among the security services. The issue is at the heart of an intense debate involving MI5, the Home Office, and the committee, in the wake of the attacks on London.
At present, threat levels are determined by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac) which handles more than 50,000 items of intelligence every year.
Jtac came under the spotlight when leaks revealed that it lowered the terrorist threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" just a month before the July 7 suicide bombings. It then raised the threat level to "critical". It was about to downgrade the threat level again on the morning of the failed attacks of July 21.
Confusion about the criteria which determine the terrorist threat levels agreed by Jtac assessors is compounded by the existence of a separate "alert" status, critics say. This sets the level of protection that should be given to public and official buildings and transport systems but not to the infrastructure of the UK as a whole. It is set on the advice of MI5 and appears in the entrance halls of public buildings. Black is the lowest state of alert and red the highest.
Under the Jtac system "moderate" is the lowest threat level and "severe specific", which assumes an attack is imminent, the highest. A public official warning system would be unified and is likely to appear on government websites and would be available to the media.
Patrick Mercer, Conservative spokesman on homeland security, believes the threat assessments should be made public. "Currently, the threat levels are deeply confusing", he told the Guardian. He said he failed to understand why the government did not publish them.
The Home Office is understood to be grappling with the problem. The security and intelligence agencies are concerned that if the threat levels are published they could be misinterpreted. It would also place them under greater scrutiny. Recommending a downgrade in the threat level early last June, Jtac said many of its concerns focused on a "wide range and large numbers of extremist networks and individuals in the UK". It did not foresee "home grown" bombers, let alone suicide bombers who attacked London tube trains and a bus on July 7.
Security sources have said they are concerned about the "integrity" of the threat assessment system, and the need to avoid the temptation to keep it artificially high. They also say that the system in the US, where threat alerts are regularly announced, could lead to a "crying wolf" syndrome in the UK. Other Whitehall officials are concerned about how to keep the public alert while avoiding alarm or panic.
Critics of the high-profile American terror threat system, first introduced in 2002, say it is useless at best, and, at worst, subject to being manipulated for political ends.
In theory, the colour-coded hierarchy of threats has five levels - low, guarded, elevated, high and severe - but it has never fallen to low or guarded, and never risen to severe. Instead, it has been raised from elevated to high, on a nationwide scale, five times, including around the first anniversary of 9/11 and the start of the war in Iraq. In New York, it has been at high all along.
One of the most controversial uses of the elevated level came in August 2004, in the thick of the election campaign, immediately after a Democratic convention thought to have been a triumph for John Kerry. "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Mr Kerry's former rival for the Democratic nomination Howard Dean told CNN at the time.
But since the specific criteria for each threat level are kept secret, it is impossible to know when raising it is justified - or, indeed, whether the lack of an actual terrorist strike on each such occasion so far shows that it works, or that it is pointless.
Nor is it made clear exactly how ordinary people should respond. "A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective," the security expert Bruce Schneier has written.
The US homeland security department's published guidance says that during a time of elevated threat citizens should "ensure disaster supply kit is stocked and ready". When the threat is high, they should "exercise caution when travelling ... expect some delays, baggage searches and restrictions at public buildings."
Guardian
|
|
ASBOs catapulting children into custody
Barnardos Press release - 02/04/2006
As the Home Office's quarterly figures on the issuing of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in England and Wales were released on Thursday 30 March 2006, Barnardo's warns that Anti Social Behaviour Orders are being over used on children and catapulting some of them into custody.
Martin Narey, Barnardo's Chief Executive, said, 'When Anti Social Behaviour Orders were introduced in 1998, the guidance was that they be used on children only in 'exceptional circumstances'.
There were only 61 in almost a two year period to the end of 2000. By contrast there were more than 500 child ASBOs in 2003, more than a thousand in 2004 and we can expect the figures for 2005 to be much worse.'
This is not exceptional use. In some areas the use of ASBOs on children is becoming entirely routine. ASBOs have their place but their over use is unnecessarily catapulting children into a custodial system which has so many children in it that the chances of rehabilitation are extremely slim and the chances of deeper criminalisation very likely.'
Barnardo's is calling for action:
· Changes to the law so that an assessment of needs and circumstances must be carried out before a child is given an ASBO
· The issuing of fresh guidance for Local Authorities considering applying for an ASBO for a child, stressing that children should not be treated as adults.
· A change in legislation to restrict the length of ASBOs for children. Currently ASBOs have to run for a minimum of two years, which to a child will seem like infinity.
· Measures to address the inexplicable geographical inconsistencies in the use of ASBOs. In 2004 there were only 33 child ASBOs in Merseyside, 45 in the West Midlands, but 192 in Greater Manchester. Figures for the first half of 2005 suggest four children a week get an ASBO in Greater Manchester.
'We acknowledge that there is a small minority of children whose behaviour is entirely unacceptable. However, ASBOs are a very blunt tool and their use must be confined to the small number of children who really need them.'
|
ASBO's = fascist terror against people who are different -
according to a study by a leading charity.
|
A few "highlights":
35% of children who were victims of ASBOs had some kind of psychological condition.
In one case, a child who could not tell the time was given an ASBO with a 9.00pm curfew, and was repeatedly arrested for breaking it.
Another couldn't read and couldn't remember the actual content of the ASBO against him.
Youth workers reveal a growing intolerance towards children with all kinds of problems, including the demonisation of children and parents.
BIBIC is the British Institute for Brain Injured Children. [see Report]
Young People with Learning and Communication Difficulties and Anti-Social Behaviour.
About BIBIC
BIBIC is a national charity working with children with conditions that affect their learning abilities.
These conditions can be varied and complex.They include autism, ADHD (attention deficits hyperactivity disorder), developmental delay, language impairments, genetic syndromes and other specific conditions such as dyslexia and dyspraxia.
These conditions affect the young person in many ways. One of the side-effects can be their lack of ability to manage their behaviour in a way that society finds sociallyacceptable. For most families, we give coping strategies to help them understand and improve their child's behaviour; we work to develop social skills and to increase self-esteem.
These strategies are high in our priorities when putting together a package around the child.We teach them to parents and if the child is old enough, we teach them too.
Ain't Misbehavin' - the beginning...
The Ain't Misbehavin' campaign began two years ago. A newspaper published an article highlighting the plight of a family whose child has just been issued an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO). He had ADHD. Until that point, BIBIC hadn't really been aware of the campaign to stamp out anti-social behaviour using this tool. It had not affected the work we do, or any of the families we had been working with, but that was all soon to change. It was not long after this event that our team of therapists working with the families began to feed back some of the problems that the families were encountering. It seemed that tolerance levels towards children with behavioural problems caused by a medical condition were falling.
Families were being sent on parenting courses and were picking up the label 'bad parent' whilst their child was being called 'naughty' again. Other charities began reporting the same concerns so we took it further. BIBIC contacted local newspapers to ask families to contact us if they too were experiencing problems in this area. We were inundated with replies, and not just from families either. Calls came from solicitors, youth offending teams, anti-social behaviour and police officers. We were completely overwhelmed - not only by the volume of calls and letters but also by the potential size of this problem. Zero tolerance was hitting hard. It was at this point that BIBIC contacted the Home Office to speak to them and share our concerns.We spoke to the ASB Unit (anti-social behaviour unit) who were very surprised.
They could not believe it was happening - guidance had been issued and they believed that common sense would prevail. At this point we only knew of families that had been threatened with ASBOs so could not give themspecific cases but alongside other charities we were concerned that it may only be a matter of time before the first case materialised.
Early research indicators of potential problems with ASBOs
In 1976 A study conducted on the Isle of White revealed that 23% of children with reading difficulties showed anti-social behaviour and 40% of children with anti-social behaviour were poor readers.
1981 Studies undertaken by Broder found a strong correlation between learning difficulties and juvenile delinquency.
1982 Sturge found a strong association between poor reading skills and anti-social behaviour.
1994 Williams and McGee discovered that a reading disability at 9 years of age predicted conduct disorder at age 15 in boys (not girls).
1997 Lynskey found that children with early reading difficulties had increased rates of conduct problems by the age of 16. There have been many more studies undertaken that have borne out these findings; it is perhaps not surprising given the results that children with learning and communications difficultiesshould find themselves subject to ASBOs.
A Case Study In 2005
A mother rang us to ask for help. Her son had an ASBO and had broken the terms of it many times. This had meant that out of the last 24 months, 13 of them had been spent in custody. In addition to this he had been held in police cells overnight 26 times. BIBIC asked for details about the background to the order. We discovered that her son had attended a school for emotional/behaviour/ disturbed children (EBD). On joining the school he became easy prey for the more street wise of the children and he had soon been in trouble. We asked why he had been taken into custody so many times and found that he keptbreaking his 9 o'clock curfew. He had not broken any other law during the term of his ASBO. The young man had a statement of special educational needs and was known to have a language impairment and suspected ADHD. He was now14 and had had his order for 2 years. When BIBIC staff spoke to his youth worker she reported that he was 'a really lovely lad' but they didn't know what to do with him - if he continued to break his ASBO they didn't know where he would finally end up. BIBIC agreed to assess him and prepare a report of our findings. As the young man had an electronic tag we had to apply to the courts for dispensation to enable him to attend our assessment centre in Somerset. His solicitor supported him and asked if she too could see the report as she felt that the system was doing this young man a disservice. This young person had a lot of caring people around him who felt powerless. The results of the tests we carried out were conclusive. He had thecognitive ability of a 7 year old in a 14 year old body. He was also dyslexic, had poor organisational skills and couldn't tell the time. In addition to this he didn't understand the ASBO or why it had been issued. The terms of the order included a ban on being in certain locations and at certain times: a difficult order with which to comply if you have no concept of time passing. In addition the order stated that some activities were acceptable as long as he was accompanied by an adult, however many of his friends, who had a negative influence on him, were over 18. Up to this point the court had not been made aware of any of his learning difficulties. On having these explained they ordered the removal of his electronic tag and greater support for him.
His ASBO is now being challenged through the Crown Courts, but had his difficulties been understood earlier it is questionable whether a magistrate would have agreed to the order in the first place, or indeed whether an ASB officer would have pursued one.
Over the last year the media have gradually picked up stories from the courts, as a naming and shaming policy is in force around the issuing of ASBOs. A child as young as 10 can have their name published in a newspaper and a leaflet put through doors to alert their local community to his/her misdemeanours. After one such case a young man became the victim of hate posters telling him he would die.
These posters were placed in the street in which he lived.
To begin with BIBIC had only heard of cases of young people threatened with ASBOs and of those reported in the media. BIBIC asked the Home Officeexactly how many children and young people with learning difficulties had received ASBOs. They were unable to tell us, as this information is not collated centrally.
COURTS
Some people may not be aware that all ASBOs are heard in adult courts as they sit within civil law. It is not until the ASBO is breached, or the authorities are applying for a CRASBO* (a criminal ASBO)
The ASBO Case that the young person appears in front of a magistrate who is fully trained to understand young people. (They may be lucky in the first hearing if a youth magistrate is sitting that day). According to a source from the Magistrates Association relevant information regarding learning difficulties does not always come to light early enough. Too often the magistrates are hearing about the young persons problem for the first time when they breach the order, not when it is issued.
ABSENCE
The first hearing can take place without the youngperson even being present (an interim ASBO). Evidence can be given as hearsay and can also be anonymous. It is therefore not surprising that some young people report that they feel victimised.
*CRASBO: an order issued to follow a conviction. Individual SupportOrdersOne of the facts that emerged clearly from ASB officers in the early stages of our research was that very few ASBOs were being supported with Individual SupportOrders (ISOs). These orders were meant to be in place to help support the child in their endeavours to comply with the order and to address some of their difficulties eg anger management etc. Once again we spoke to the Home Office and informed them of what we had heard. We were told that the guidance was in place and that it should be happening.
It was later discovered that only 7 orders had been put in place across the UK. We are very pleased to hear that extra funding has now been provided in order to implement ISOs.
Hearsay and complaints
Families of children with learning and communication difficulties are telling us that because complaints about them sometimes go directly to the local authority (new ASBO reporting lines) thereby bypassing them, they have no opportunity to address areas of concerndirectly. On at least two occasions families have told us they have first heard of the problems from the Police and the housing authority.
One family with a child with autism has a neighbour recording the conversations of the family through the walls - the mother is afraid she will be evicted. Another reported a complaint had been made about her child with Asperger syndrome after he had copied a children's TV programme and used a salt cellar to write his name on the road. These incidents may appear trivial in printbut they are very real to those experiencing these kind of threats.
Postcode lottery
One mother, who is a midwife, told us that she had moved her son with learning difficulties to another county to live with his grandmother because she refused to allow him to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contact (ABC) as she knew he would not be able to keep to its terms. (ABCs are the fore-runner to the ASBO: they are often issued in the early stages to explain to the child what is expected of them. They are a set of statements to which the child signs up. If they are breached, very often the next stage is an ASBO.)
The above story is a fine illustration of how the postcode lottery is taking effect. Cities such as Manchester issued 710 ASBOs between 1999 and 2004. Many others have proudly told us that they have not issued a single ASBO to anyone under the age of 17. In 2004 Leeds imposed 66 ASBOs on young people in one day. This could only result in overloading the YOT team who are responsible for ensuring that the youngperson fully understands the terms of the Order.
Understanding Developmental Milestones
Up to the age of 7 years of age, the majority of children maintain a level of high self-esteem. From 7-10 years of age they become more aware of their achievements and those of their peers and have a more realistic understanding of themselves. Beyond 10 years of age, children who doubt their abilities consistently begin to give in when they encounter difficulties, they easily become de-motivated and more at risk of anti-social behaviour. Beyond the age of 10 the behaviour patterns will be set, that will become more difficult to change as time goes on.
In order to maintain a child's self-esteem and to help them fit into socially acceptable models of behaviour we need to be identifying children before 10 years old and ideally before 7. The early signs are there. We wish to follow the far cheaper option of intervention.Understanding Our findings show that young people with learning and communication difficulties experience immense problems in understanding the terms of the Orders. Comprehending the language used and the consequence of breaking those terms are often the first stumbling block. Some have told us that they do not remember what they have signed. There appears to be confusion over the finer details - some of the orders specify places where the young person is unable to go, but they will qualify the statement by giving permission to visit the same location with an adult or parent. This is fine until you realise that many of these children are mixing with people considerably older than themselves and very often this is why they are finding themselves with problems. Young people with learning difficulties will often interpret instructions extremely rigidly: one young man told us that if he ran down the streets he was banned from it didn't count because he wasn't stopping. Another couldn't read the Order so was relying on his memory - he got most of it wrong when tested. Some of the YOTs to whom we have spoken have admitted that they do not know how to communicate these details to some of the young people with whom they are working. They are unsure of just how much the child/young person is taking in: they appear to be listening but cannot recall the information later when asked. One young lad had spent so long hiding his difficulties that he burst into tears in the court when they were described to the magistrate. Early intervention - the need explained
BIBIC has recently undertaken several surveys to ascertain the incidence of ASBOs issued to young people with learning and communication difficulties, the full results of which will be available shortly. These surveys have included information given by Youth Offending Teams and ASB Officers.
Also informal interviews have been held with solicitors, parents, young people with ASBOs, voluntary organisations and magistrates. BIBIC wanted to gauge the thoughts of the teams working with the young people to be able to put the results of the more formal research in context. You will find their feedback represented elsewhere in this report. BIBIC finds the results of the surveys surprising and are now in the process of having them independently validated. For the purpose of this report we can release some of the information ascertained from the survey carried out with YOTs.
We would ask that you view these figures at this stage as indicators. The data requested covered a set period from April 2004 - April 2005. This ensured that no matter how long the team took to respond we would be uniformly capturing a snapshot in time.
39% of all YOTs invited to take part in the survey responded.
1. Question: “How many of those under 17 with ASBOs involved children who had a diagnosed mental health disorder or an accepted learning difficulty?”
Answer: 35%2.
Question: Of those cases, how many involved the following conditions? Autism/Asperger syndrome?
Answer 3%
ADHD (attention hyperactivity disorder)?
Answer 42%
Global developmental delay?
Answer 1%
Dyspraxia/dyslexia?
Answer 0.9%
Cases where the estimated level of understanding was below the expected for 10 years of age?
Answer 6%
Other?
Answer 46%
(this included conditions such as Tourette syndrome, conduct disorders, emotional behavioural difficulties through to depression)
We had not asked for 'suspected difficulties,' only known ones.
It could be suggested that these figure are conservative given that many people with learning and communication difficulties go undiagnosed.
During our discussions with the YOTs many commented that they thought the figure could bemuch higher in reality.
1. Question: How many of these cases, if any, had previously agreed an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC)?
Answer 81%4.
Question: How many of them failed to maintain the conditions of the ABC?
Answer 74%
| |
