The consultation on a proposed Anti-Social Behaviour Bill has now been launched – very much at the top of the agenda as the Executive claim to be responding to real concerns raised in communities during the election campaign, and pledge to "support people in reclaiming their communities for the law-abiding majority". In keeping with the commitment that "communities must be fully involved in the solutions", the consultation process will include communities affected by anti-social behaviour and the statutory and voluntary agencies involved.

Taking the definition from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, anti-social conduct is described as "that which causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household". This may include:

• harassment and intimidating behaviour
• behaviour that creates alarm or fear
• noisy neighbours
• drunken and abusive behaviour
• vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property
• nuisance from vehicles, including parking and abandonment
• dumping rubbish and litter.

Each section of the consultation concludes with questions to which the Executive are seeking public response (see below).

Executive figures highlighting the problems include a 26% increase from 2000/1 to 2001/2 in the number of children referred to the Children's Reporter for being outwith parental control; persistent young offenders are also increasing, with those committing 7-9 offences up by 10%. The most frequently reported neighbourhood problems were: people drinking or taking drugs (40%), groups of young people hanging around (40%), vandalism and rubbish/litter (both 32%). Recent Household Survey figures show increases in people feeling unsafe in their communities at night, with 22% worried about being attacked in the street (27% of those aged 16-24), while 24% consider it unsafe to walk alone in their neighbourhood after dark.

The causes of anti-social behaviour, note the Executive, are complex and inter-linked. These are listed as: (a) family problems - parental criminality, poor parental supervision/discipline, conflict; (b) school and education problems - non-attendance, lack of motivation, poor educational attainment; (c) employment problems - lack of skills, qualifications and jobs, low income; (d) social and medical problems - drug and alcohol abuse.

The Executive aim to reduce persistent offending by 10% by 2006, and to "build confidence in Scotland's hearings system".

Local councils are to be encouraged to set up proactive anti-social behaviour units - specialised teams involving community partners such as the police, community wardens and housing officers - and there will be a strengthened duty on local agencies to involve communities in the preparation of anti-social behaviour strategies. Greater use will be made of Community Reparation Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) for both children and parents, and there will be improved protection for witnesses. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and electronic tagging are to be extended to under-16s and more options will be available to Children's Hearings. The introduction of flexible Parenting Orders will be able to require parents to undergo guidance or counselling and take a more active role in supervising their children.

Other proposals include a ban on selling spray paint to under-16s to help combat graffiti, tougher penalties for fly-tipping and abandoning vehicles, allowing community wardens to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for litter, and stronger powers to combat noise nuisance. Good tenants may be eligible for rewards, whether financial or in the form of a faster repair service, and "good neighbour" declarations, which set out the responsibilities of landlords and tenants, will be piloted. Local authorities may gain new powers to deal with landlords who don't tackle anti-social behaviour by their tenants. Fixed Penalty Notices are planned for some anti-social activities with a power of arrest if they are breached.

Other services which are expected to support the ASB strategy are victim support services and the witness service, which aims to break down anxiety by familiarising witnesses with court procedure, allowing them to tour the court before giving evidence; the Vulnerable Witnesses Bill is the subject of a separate consultation exercise. Greater use is planned of 'Professional Witnesses' – either dedicated, specialist staff who gather evidence and support witnesses as well as giving evidence in court, or community wardens (though concerns are raised over how this might impact on the role of wardens within the community); more than a third of councils already have these staff.

ABCs (written agreements between a child or adult involved in anti-social behaviour and the police or local authority) can be used with parents who fail to act on their child's anti-social behaviour, including truancy and behaviour problems in school. The contract sets out the behaviour that the person has agreed to stop and may also detail the support to help change their behaviour, specifying that legal action may result from of a breach of terms. While it is not proposed to introduce ABCs on a statutory basis, breach of an ABC or a refusal to enter a contract without reasonable excuse is likely to be considered relevant evidence for an application for an ASBO or a Parenting Order.

ASBOs are civil orders that exist to protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress. Breach of an order is a criminal offence. The document states the importance of involving all the agencies - the local authority social services, education and housing services, the police or Children's Hearings system - with whom the young person and their family have had dealings when reaching a decision whether to apply for an ASBO, and to "consider the circumstances of the young person as a whole". It is expected that most young people who are the subject of an ASBO application will come through the Children's Hearing system. However, where the behaviour of the child is immediately difficult an application for an ASBO will be possible without prior recourse to the hearings system.

The document recommends that ASBOs for under-16s should be accompanied, where appropriate, by a support order, which would require the young person concerned to take positive steps (such as participation in activities, education or counselling) to prevent any repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the ASBO; this would be tailored to individual needs, focusing on the causes of the anti-social behaviour. Unlike breach of an ASBO by an adult, breach by an under 16 will not, it is envisaged, result in a custodial sentence by itself, in the absence of any other offences.

There is to be some discussion over whether an ASBO might have to apply throughout Scotland, and not just, as at present, the local authority area of residence, when the anti-social behaviour may be perpetrated elsewhere.

Youth Courts, (currently being piloted in Hamilton), targeting all 16 and 17 year olds and some 15 year olds with a history of offending behaviour three or more times within the previous six months, may be utilised in conjunction with ASBOs.

Electronic tagging is to be extended to under 16s. Two options are outlined with regard to extending electronic monitoring to under 16s – either limiting its use to young people for whom the only alternative is in secure accommodation, or to use for welfare or offending reasons within the hearings system with breach a new ground for secure accommodation. Adults can be restricted to a place for a maximum of 12 hours per day and/or from a place for 24 hours a day, for up to a year; and the Executive are inviting suggestions for its use for the under 16s. It will be able to be used for welfare reasons, where, for example the young person may be involved in prostitution, drug use or other self-harm.

Inadequate parenting is identified as a high-risk factor in relation to youth offending. Research quoted indicates that 42% of children who had low or medium levels of parental supervision had offended, compared to 20% of those who had experienced high levels of parenting. "Harsh or erratic" behaviour by parents is associated with doubling the likelihood of offending behaviour.

Local authorities and the Children's Reporter will be able to apply to the Sheriff Court for a Parenting Order, and it is proposed to require courts to take into account the best interests of all the children of the family concerned. Parenting Orders will be applicable to a parent or guardian (not foster carers, where the local authority has responsibility). An appeal against the granting or terms of a Parenting Order should be available (to the Sheriff Principal or Court of Session).

Where a Parenting Order has been granted it may require the parent to attend counselling or guidance sessions where they will receive help and support in dealing with their child. It would also require them to exercise control over their child's behaviour. This could include ensuring that their child:

• attends school or other relevant educational activities, such as mentoring;
• is in a literacy and numeracy or homework club;
• avoids contact with disruptive and possibly older children;
• avoids visiting certain areas, such as shopping centres, unsupervised;
• is home during certain hours at night and is effectively supervised;

It may also require the parent to attend or ensure that their child attends a programme or course to address relevant problems, such as anger management or drug or alcohol misuse.

While a Parenting Order is a civil order, breach will be a criminal offence, with a fine up to £1,000 the penalty. Where this is not paid, the parent would be subject to a Supervised Attendance Order. Only if this was also breached, would the sentencing options include imprisonment, and would be subject to taking account of the best interests of the children of the family. For children in local authority care, the council may be reported to the Sheriff who can issue an order requiring their compliance. The consultation document claims that a pilot scheme showed that Parenting Orders worked: only 10% were the subject of breach proceedings and "moreover, the young people involved, the parents themselves and the agencies who delivered the orders were all of the view that the orders, and the support that came with them, had a positive effect".

The Executive argue that "it should not be necessary for the child to have to offend before the failures of parents can be addressed in this way." The "chaotic lifestyle" of many parents may mean that they fail to ensure provision of appropriate food, clothing and other essentials, which is likely to be a factor in the child's disruptive behaviour. A Parenting Order made on welfare grounds would only be applied after several referrals to the Reporter, where the parent had not taken up help offered, and where the next option to be considered might be removal of the child from home. Parenting Orders might be made in relation to a child's attendance or behaviour at school, though there are already powers to make Attendance Orders under the 1980 Education Act where parents fail to ensure that their child attends school.

Local authorities may be either required or enabled to implement a night-noise nuisance service, with Environmental Health Officers and possibly community wardens able to issue Fixed Penalty Notices and put an immediate stop to noise nuisance between hours of 11pm and 7am. Another option is to extend the proposals to 24 hours.

Local authorities will also either be given the power to require all privately let property in a defined area to be registered, making all unregistered letting illegal, or to take over the management of properties where the landlord has failed to tackle anti-social behaviour by tenants. The council could withdraw or refuse registration (subject to appeal to the court) if a landlord failed to take action on serious anti-social behaviour.

To combat the perception that resources are targeted only to anti-social individuals and families, a scheme similar to that being operated by Edinburgh City Council, which rewards tenants who behave themselves and pay their rent on time, may be extended across the country. Rewards include financial bonuses, day trips and a faster repair service. Tenants who misbehave get the basic service, with increasing sanction and punishment for those who persistently misbehave.

Local authorities have a responsibility to offer accommodation to someone evicted following an ASBO, although they are likely to be housed in non-tenancy accommodation such as hostels.

A restorative justice approach is said to be part of the wider ASB strategy, though the purely punitive elements overshadow this aspect to a large extent. A Community Reparation Order (CRO) will be introduced, to be administered through the District Courts, the principal content of which will be "visible reparation to the community". A statutory requirement – with safeguards – may be placed on local authorities to consult with appropriate agencies and bodies, such as local victims' organisations, community councils and the police, about the form of reparation.

Consideration is being given to extending police powers, including a specific power to disperse groups where there is anti-social behaviour, tougher powers to enter and close licensed premises, and a clearer power to close premises where anti-social behaviour, such as drug-dealing, takes place.

One of the most contentious areas is this proposal to introduce a new power for police to disperse groups of under-16s and take them home, where an officer has reason to believe:

(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places in any locality in their police area and

(b) that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality.

To maintain a clear distinction between civil and criminal law, the police will not be able to apply for ASBOs, though local authorities would be required to consult the police before making an application.

Children's charities, civil liberties groups, and those working with the homeless – as well as the churches – have raised concerns about the strategy, claiming that it will not tackle the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour. The timing of the consultation has meant that little time has been allowed to fully digest and respond to the proposals, leading to a widespread feeling that the policy has already been set, as the Bill, due for publication in early autumn is already being drafted. Confirming suspicions that many aspects of the strategy have already been decided, an official conceded; that "Ministers are fairly committed already", yet was at pains to stress that certain issues are genuinely up for debate (especially those highlighted in the questions).

The strategy itself is very wide-ranging and many feel that it is trying to do too much, based on flimsy evidence of what works, and lacks a clear focus. Issues of values and respect are missing from a document which focuses heavily on punitive measures, reacting to anti-social behaviour after the act and touching only briefly on restorative justice; conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the role of economic disadvantage and redistribution of wealth.

At recent meetings of the voluntary sector Anti-Social Behaviour Network and of church representatives, concerns were raised that the strategy reflects a wider anti-children culture which serves only to demonise children and foster inter-generational conflict. Aberlour Childcare Trust say that; "young people are the solution – not an epidemic problem"; they are calling on the Scottish Executive to "get youth crime into perspective and avoid punitive measures when youth crime rates are falling". There are concerns that young people will be criminalised and more pressure placed on already stretched Social Work departments and police. A particularly worrying possible scenario is that children deemed to be engaging into anti-social behaviour may in fact have special needs which have not been identified, and nothing in the consultation paper seems to account for this possibility.

As ever, questions need to be asked about where the extra resources are to come from – just one of the essential details the document is very thin on. The Executive have not been able to give assurances on whether there will be new money or funding redirected from existing programmes. If problems for the police or Children's Panels are due to shortage of resources, giving new powers to either will not provide solutions. New legislation may seem attractive as a way of "doing something" but existing laws, effectively implemented, might be a better way forward.

The consultation document contains a recognition that not all anti-social behaviour is perpetrated by young people and that young people themselves are often the victims, yet the vast bulk of its provisions focus on anti-social behaviour by under 16s; considerable unease is also expressed at what would appear to be a disproportionate emphasis on tenants of social housing.

Even apparently sensible proposals for agencies sharing information conceal the fine balance that should be struck between sharing information to combat anti-social behaviour, and the rights of the individual. Similarly, finding a balance on the thorny issue of gatherings of young people may prove difficult in both theory and practice.

The potential exists for serious problems in terms of who defines key concepts such as ‘communities’, ‘noise’, ‘fear’, and where lines are to be drawn. In the absence of moral consensus in today’s society, is there a strong enough definition of what constitutes anti-social behaviour?

An inherent tension exists in the contradictory approaches of encouraging police to get alongside people and build relations in communities while proposing new powers, such as an enhanced power to disperse groups, with potential to undermine these relationships.

Many view the plans as running counter to the Executive’s commitment to social inclusion. Ministers, however, do not see the two as contradictory; arguing that it disadvantaged communities who typically bear the brunt of anti-social behaviour. No attempt, however, appears to be being made to learn from healthy, stable communities and examples of good practice. The proposals seem to be in tension with recent homelessness legislation and recent proposals for "liberalising" licensing laws; it is also unclear how the strategy links into community planning.

While it purports to be a ‘joined-up’ approach, there is no real linkage made with education and schools. There is some concern that where young people who are still at school are the subject of an ASBO that additional monitoring will be needed within school hours and that schools should not be expected to take on these extra responsibilities.

Glasgow University will be conducting an independent analysis of the consultation responses – both written submissions and those from meetings being held up and down the country – and this will be published in due course. When the Bill reaches Parliament, there should be further opportunities for groups to give evidence.

Christians approach these issues as people who believe in redemption, taking us beyond the stereotypical "soft" and "hard" approaches to the forgiveness and justice that turn lives around. From that conviction, and many practical experiences of the churches' engagement with young people (from Sunday Schools to List D Schools – all unrecognised in the document), our more specific responses will come.

That perspective would seem to take us much more in the direction of restorative justice, in which facing the reality of the offence is a key to renewal, with the aim of playing a positive part in the life of the community.

At the recent church reps meeting hosted by SCPO, "lenses" of Christian love and respect for human dignity were suggested as a basis for our response – where do the proposals either fit with or contradict these?

As Christians, we need to recognise the pain and pressures of all who are caught up in anti-social behaviour. Premature division of "wheat and tares" (with whole, wide groups identified as the problem) can be deeply divisive, when building up communities in which "everyone matters" is crucial in the long run.

Jesus' meeting with the "Gerasene demoniac" – a frighteningly anti-social individual whom the law was failing to control – might be a provocative starting point, in which the solution is indeed found in new powers, but to liberate rather than control, and the calling with which the story ends is very much about working within a community considered "beyond the pale". The story (Mk 5.1-20) may also have something to say about people values as against property values!

Some organisations which represent older people are working alongside children’s charities to seek solutions to these issues – an approach which presents a unique opportunity for churches to play a pivotal role in bringing together people across the generations to discuss and generate fresh ideas. Such conversations can produce moments of revelation.

Therefore, while having some radical criticisms of these proposals, we may also seek to be positive and affirm some aspects. Since the questions identified in the document represent areas on which some influence is possible (while broad policy is already well set politically), we may well focus on these (within our broad perspectives) in both personal and denominational responses.