Antisocial Behaviour
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2893, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on antisocial behaviour.
We know that people want to live in communities where the threat of crime and disorder does not hang like a pall over their homes. People want to live in communities where they do not have to put up with mindless and thuggish behaviour. I am talking about the kind of behaviour that makes elderly people frightened to leave their homes and children afraid to play outside—the kind of antisocial behaviour that saps people's confidence, undermines their hope for a better future and, of course, undermines respect.
We had to persuade many professional, political and, indeed, some media people that antisocial behaviour was and is a real problem in Scotland. What we did not have to do was persuade the hard-pressed communities that live with it every day. Despite the early opposition and concerns of some, we knew that we had to deliver for those communities.
Today, I want to report on how we are delivering and to say something about what more we need to do. Before I do that, I think that it is worth putting this work into the context of the wider reforms that we are undertaking. We are making our courts more effective, accessible and responsive to communities; tackling the problems of reoffending; putting more police than ever before into our police forces and on to our streets; introducing programmes to tackle the scourge of drugs—programmes such as the drug dealers don't care campaign; tackling the culture of violence; addressing knife crime; and taking steps to deal with the stain of sectarianism. All that work will help to make daily life safer for Scotland's people and to tackle antisocial behaviour.
I will give one example of how those various strands fit together. Drugs and antisocial behaviour often go hand in hand; the premises that are used for drug dealing frequently become the focus of antisocial behaviour. People are often too frightened to complain, but the drug dealers don't care campaign showed that, with the right sort of approach, we can help those communities to take a stand against the drug dealers.
The closure orders that are provided under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 can be used to give immediate relief to those near the premises, allowing the police time to deal with the criminal activity. That provision links to our proposals for reinvesting the proceeds of crime back into the communities that are hardest hit by the effects of drugs and antisocial behaviour. In that way, we are giving something tangible back to those communities. The same approach of tackling the problem from all angles characterises the reforms that we are undertaking.
I want to say a few words about how we are tackling antisocial behaviour and about our progress so far. Ministers have seen at first hand how the measures in the act are being used and the difference that they are making to our communities. People who have suffered years of noise nuisance can now—and perhaps for the first time—sleep peacefully.
Will the minister give way?
I would like to finish the point.
That may not mean much to politicians and professionals in the leafy suburbs, but it means a lot to people who have faced years—and I mean years—of that kind of behaviour on their doorsteps. I am interested in the comments of real people. One resident in Montrose said about a closure order:
"It has been a living hell for all the rest of us. It will be bliss for the first time in months to have some peace and quiet".
In commenting on the progress of the act, is the minister disappointed at the apparent lack of interest in issuing antisocial behaviour orders and the apparent inertia in using the much-vaunted dispersal powers?
I will move on to address those points.
Since October 2004, four closure orders have been granted to police forces in Fife, Lothian and Borders and Tayside. Sheriffs in the Scottish Borders, Falkirk, West Lothian and Aberdeenshire have, between them, granted 10 ASBOs on conviction. In addition, the dispersal powers have been used in the Grampian police area. Fife constabulary has used the powers of the act to seize vehicles that were being used in an antisocial manner and have issued 34 warning notices. Since April, police in Tayside, who are piloting the use of fixed-penalty notices for more routine types of antisocial behaviour, have issued more than 400 notices.
It is not just the measures in the act that are having an impact, although things are beginning to come through in that respect. We are also seeing the positive results of the substantial extra funding that we have provided, which, it is worth remembering, is more than £113 million over four years. We have put 550 community wardens on to the streets of those hard-pressed communities across Scotland. The wardens are proving very popular—they are already having a real impact. I want to repeat a comment that I have used in the chamber before, which is that, in Fraserburgh, wardens have helped to reduce incidents of youth disorder by 55 per cent and vandalism by 16 per cent over the period that they have been in operation. One resident in Fraserburgh said:
"You can actually see it's made a difference. You don't have so many kids running about causing trouble and there does seem to be less graffiti and vandalism".
The dedicated antisocial behaviour teams or co-ordinators in virtually every local authority area are now beginning to deal with serious cases of antisocial behaviour; they are bringing them to court.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will give way to the member whose constituency I have just mentioned.
The residents of Fraserburgh welcome the changes. However, does the minister accept that the big change that many businesses in the town of Fraserburgh want is increased overnight police cover? They want that cover at weekends in particular, when substantial problems remain. Wardens are not a substitute for police.
Indeed, and no one has ever suggested that wardens are a substitute for the police. In working alongside the police, wardens are part of the solution to the problem. Some of the measures that have been taken to tackle retail crime in particular have been welcomed by, for example, the Scottish Retail Consortium.
I want to make the important point that antisocial behaviour legislation, coupled with the extra funding that is linked to the wider justice reforms, is beginning to show that we are taking a stand and that we are making a difference to people's lives. We have come a long way, but there is a lot more that has still to be done.
I want to mention a couple of issues that relate to points that Miss Goldie raised and on which other members will no doubt want to comment. The first is the consistent use of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 across the country. I have heard some rumblings—no doubt members will have too—about agencies that are not willing under any circumstances to use some of the measures in the act. That is simply not acceptable.
Local communities have a right to know that a consistent approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is being taken across the country. I am referring to action by the local authorities, police, the children's hearings system or the courts. We all acknowledge that a lot of antisocial behaviour results from some very deep-seated problems that require long-term solutions. Scottish ministers are totally committed to addressing those problems. However, the problems that individuals face should not and must not prevent us from dealing with the effects of their antisocial behaviour on others. It is not acceptable to say to victims of antisocial behaviour that they have to suffer in silence until someone else's problems have been dealt with. We have to help the perpetrators to acknowledge and change their behaviour while, at the same time, we bring relief to those who suffer from it.
I have emphasised that point because I want to send a clear message to all the agencies, at a time when they are finalising their antisocial behaviour strategies, that ruling out the use of any of the measures in the act is not acceptable. A blanket refusal by any agency in any part of Scotland not only undermines the will of the Scottish Parliament, but fails the local people whom the agency should be trying to help. That does not mean that legal measures should be used indiscriminately, however. Local antisocial behaviour strategies need to reflect the need for prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation as well as enforcement. That said, we expect legal measures to be used when appropriate, including ASBOs for under-16s, parenting orders and dispersal.
I want to knock on the head any idea or perception that ministers are interested only in the number of ASBOs, closure notices or dispersal orders obtained. Of course, we need to know how the measures are being used. Members, quite rightly, ask ministers about that all the time. Indeed, there is a legal requirement to report on the use of ASBOs and dispersal.
Executive funding from 2006 is tied to the achievement of outcomes, not the number of times the measures in the act are used. Community planning partnerships must show that they have made real, tangible and measurable improvements on the ground for the people in our local communities. An outcome agreement approach is not a blank cheque: community planning partnerships that fail to deliver real outcomes for their communities and, at the same time, fail to use the measures in the act must be held to account.
Our strategy is showing that people in Scotland can stand up to antisocial behaviour if local agencies and local people work together. I want to congratulate the agencies that are blazing the trail. Having said that, I believe that an equally determined and consistent approach needs to be taken to tackling antisocial behaviour across the country and that that approach should include using the measures in the act when that is the appropriate thing to do. The people of Scotland have a right to expect that the good practice that we are seeing in some areas becomes the norm across Scotland. We must achieve that if we are to foster confidence in our public services and regenerate the respect that we all want in our society.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that people in all parts of Scotland should be able to live free from fear and harassment; welcomes the commencement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 and the progress made to date to act against antisocial behaviour; believes that the preparation of antisocial behaviour outcome agreements linked to antisocial behaviour strategies by local authorities working with local communities will help build confidence across Scotland; notes that ongoing work is needed to build confidence in our communities, and urges local agencies across Scotland to use the full range of measures at their disposal appropriate to local circumstances.
Ministers are correct to address the problem and the Executive is correct to take steps to deal with it. Antisocial behaviour blights communities and makes individuals' lives a thorough misery. It affects health and undermines the fabric of society. It is corrosive to communities.
We must remember that although some antisocial behaviour is criminal, some is not. We must deal with those matters differently. For example, it is clear that noise, on which the minister commented, must be addressed, as must drug peddling. However, other matters are not necessarily criminal, such as failing to clean the common stair or to cut the grass on a common or in a close. Such behaviour is antisocial and we must accept that it undermines the ethos of a community, but it cannot be dealt with as a criminal matter. That is not to say that all such behaviour is acceptable—clearly, it is not. All that I am saying is that some antisocial behaviour is not criminal and cannot be dealt with simply by the police or by prosecution. We require other avenues to deal with it.
We accept that part of the Executive's motion about taking the powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which we supported. It is necessary, however, to ensure that local authorities and other agencies are properly resourced, not simply chastised and castigated for not dealing with matters. However, if the measures are to work, it is important to have that aspect of the armoury.
Does the member accept that £113 million over the period that I specified represents extremely substantial resources to address the problems?
I accept that that substantial amount of money has been provided, but local authorities have other departments that are imploding and must rob Peter to pay Paul. Local authority social work departments have difficulties and stretched resources. We welcome the money, but if it leaks out through other holes in the proverbial local authority bucket, a significant problem exists.
The powers are just one aspect and they are not the whole solution. The powers are fine for some, but probably only the few. We must address the root causes and not just the symptoms and the malaise. If we are to go to the roots of offending, we must address the causes of criminality and not just the crimes.
We must accept the extent of the problem. The minister is correct that whole areas are being made miserable, but in substantial parts of Scotland, such as the leafy suburbs in which I and no doubt other members live, antisocial behaviour is not a problem or is addressed in the community. We must put matters in perspective. Scotland is not a war zone, although—unfortunately—some areas tend to resemble one. We as legislators have a duty to address that.
We must not portray action as a war on a generation. The overwhelming majority of youngsters are a credit to themselves, to their families and to their communities. We must not be seen as lecturing and hectoring them. Moreover, we must remember that the root cause of a child or youngster's participation in criminality may be his mother's heroin addiction or his father's alcohol dependency. It ill befits those of our generation to castigate the younger generation if the problems stem from our generation. As I said, we must address the roots of criminality.
We must deal with the problem, create a culture and bring it on board in a variety of ways. I do not normally support Tony Blair, but it is necessary to encourage respect. The Scottish National Party's position is that taking powers is appropriate, but that it is essential for society and individuals to take responsibility. Individuals must accept that actions have consequences. If someone throws a stone, it might injure someone or break something. People cannot make excuses that they did not mean that to happen. They must remember that actions have consequences.
People must take it on board that they must respect others' rights. Other people in the community or in their stair have the right to have their views respected and to have the volume of music kept lower when they are trying to sleep. People must take their turn at cleaning the common stair and—especially if they are young, fit and able-bodied—at cutting the front green, rather than leaving it to a pensioner. All those matters require respect.
It is difficult to legislate for respect. That is why we believe that the powers are simply one aspect. Legislation cannot say, "You must respect your elders." That is impossible. However, that does not mean that we as a society do not strive to be tough on the causes of crime as well as on crime itself. That takes education, work with voluntary bodies and work with youngsters. The minister should take on board the points that Tony Blair has made, because it is correct to address not only social responsibility, but individual responsibility to others in the community. People practise that with their families and we must accept that they should also do so in the broader community.
How do we address that? We do not do that simply by repression. If we move youngsters from outside one shop or one place to another place, all that we do is displace the problem. We must do what Strathclyde police—to their credit—are trialling in the likes of South Lanarkshire, which takes on board what places such as Sweden do in trying to work out who the children are, why they are standing in a place and whether they have a problem at home. [Interruption.]
Order.
Does the member accept that that is exactly what we are asking local authorities to do in their approaches to drawing up antisocial behaviour strategies for their areas? Will he accept that at no point in my speech did I suggest that antisocial behaviour was caused only by young people?
I am happy to accept that and I am not suggesting that—I am well aware of the minister's commitment to youngsters. However, the perception—if not the reality from the minister—is of an attack on a generation of youngsters and of repression rather than seeking to reform and rehabilitate. We must learn lessons not only from Sweden, but—as the minister agrees—from what is happening in the likes of South Lanarkshire. We must work out the causes of criminality. If the cause is a parent's heroin addiction or another drug addiction, that must be addressed. If the cause is a lack of employment, we must tackle it. We cannot simply deal with the behaviour.
Back not only in 1997, but in the mid-1990s, when Labour attacked a Tory Government that had ravaged housing estates by creating areas of mass unemployment into which heroin flowed, Tony Blair said that Labour would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. In moving our amendment, the SNP supports the Executive in being tough on crime, but the perception and the reality are that the Executive is not being tough on the causes of crime. That is why we must address social and individual responsibility and respect for all. Our society should address the three Ds that blight our country—drink, drugs and deprivation.
I move amendment S2M-2893.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"believes that the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 offers further options and powers to relevant local authorities and agencies; notes, however, that appropriate resourcing of police, local authorities and other local, national and voluntary agencies is a prerequisite for tackling antisocial behaviour, as is co-operation and interaction between, and amongst, them and national government; believes that individuals must accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences of these and, in addition, respect the rights of others in their community and society, and further believes that it is essential that government at all levels accepts responsibility for all communities within Scotland and addresses, not just social exclusion, but also the scourge of drink, drugs and deprivation that scar our land."
All political parties agree that antisocial behaviour blights too many of our communities. To that end, I record once again that the Conservatives supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. We supported it in committee and at stages 1 and 3, yet Mr McConnell harbours the illusion that we did not support it at all.
We were extremely uneasy with aspects of the 2004 act and particularly with the proposals for the dispersal of groups. We opposed that power emphatically because it does not provide a solution. It simply moves the problem from area B to area C. It would be better to deal with the difficulty in area B by using existing law than to put the problem on a conveyor belt to end up somewhere else in the community.
If I understood the minister's reply to my intervention, the dispersal power has been used once, so it is clear that not much appetite is felt for it. My experience is that not much appetite is felt for ASBOs for people who are under 16, which is something of a frustration to many of our children's panels.
Unfortunately, many of the difficulties about which we warned are coming to pass. There is no doubt that the Executive saw the 2004 act as its big solution, but without an adequate enforcement regime, the act is as helpful as a chocolate teapot. All the laws that the Executive can dream up are useless without a proper enforcement regime, which—unfortunately—is missing.
It is disturbing that three in every four crimes are not reported to the police. I suggest that many such crimes involve antisocial behaviour. How can the Executive claim to be making progress on the issue when members of the public have so little confidence that they do not even bother to report crimes?
Will Miss Goldie correct the impression that is created by the way in which her amendment is phrased? The amendment seems to indicate that she lacks confidence in the police. Is that what she means to say?
I have no intention whatsoever of expressing a lack of confidence in the police—indeed, we have a policy that would produce another 1,500 police officers. We also desire improved accountability. Our policies show that we do not lack confidence in the police—we are simply articulating the universal concern that communities throughout Scotland have expressed.
The minister referred to having more police. I would be interested to hear how many more police there should be, as it seems that we are not succeeding in establishing acceptable visible policing in our communities. However, zero-tolerance policing has a proven track record, as I have illustrated many times previously.
What Annabel Goldie has just said and the reference in her amendment to zero-tolerance policing indicate that she does not believe that it is right for chief constables to have operational responsibility. If the Conservative party ever gained power—I am talking about in a fantasy land—would she tell chief constables exactly how they should operate?
No. We have made it clear that that would not be the impact of our proposal for an elected police convener. By contrast, we have said that we would be happy for police boards to continue to have councillors on them, but the time has come for the public in a police board locality to have an opportunity to elect a convener who will say that they will drive forward a strategic plan for the area while operational decisions will be left to serving police officers.
Zero-tolerance policing works. I have referred to the experience in New York, but there has also been success in Broomhouse in Edinburgh. Police officers may deter and detect crime, but it is equally important that an increased police presence will re-engage with communities and the law-abiding majority. It is time that someone spoke up for the law-abiding majority, whose confidence has been dented. With that confidence at such a low ebb, we must surely be mindful of what we should do to restore it and put our justice system back in the premier position in which it ought to be.
Increasing the visibility of the police in our communities is necessary, but that will only treat the symptoms of antisocial behaviour. Mr MacAskill borrowed Mr Blair's phrase, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and it is undoubtedly true that the increasing problem of family breakdowns must be addressed. From a Civitas study, we know about the disturbing pattern of a major contributor towards antisocial behaviour being children living without their father. The research data that were produced apparently show—sadly—that such children are more likely to do less well at school and are more likely to smoke, take drugs and engage in criminal activity.
That is outrageous.
I merely repeat what the study disclosed. The minister may not care for the disclosure, but he can check the research himself.
At his first press conference following re-election, Mr Blair said that he could bring in new laws, but that he could not
"raise someone's children for them."
I applaud the Prime Minister for having the courage to recognise the Government's limits in that field. I realise that it is not only young people who engage in antisocial behaviour, but if we are to make headway in solving the problem, we need to consider our children and help them to regain self-esteem, self-respect and respect for others. That task cannot fall to the state—it is the responsibility of parents. In many cases, the problem will—sadly—start with the parents. Their difficulties, anxieties and emotional turbulence will affect their children as sure as night follows day. There can be earlier intervention to identify parents who may be struggling to cope and whose children are therefore most at risk of becoming involved in crime.
Will the member take an intervention?
I hope that the minister will forgive me for not doing so, as I am in my final minute.
It seems to me that the approach that has been adopted in the United States has been successful. Of course, it has been largely undertaken by the voluntary sector, whose innovation and flexibility is valuable. I suggest that we must work more with the voluntary sector in Scotland.
There is no magic legislative sticking plaster that can whisk away the problems of antisocial behaviour in our communities, but a greatly improved and more accountable enforcement regime—and more police on our streets—would make headway. The Executive's motion slightly misses the point at this juncture.
I move amendment S2M-2893.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes with regret that the Scottish Crime Survey indicated that three out of every four crimes are never reported to the police, indicating a lack of confidence from the public; notes the commencement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 but, in doing so, recognises that, without an adequate enforcement regime, measures included within the Act cannot work; ultimately believes that only when there is a greatly increased police presence on our streets, following zero-tolerance policing methods and re-engaging with communities, will we see a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase resources available to the police along with an improving accountability to ensure an improvement in the deterrence and detection of crime."
We are again discussing antisocial behaviour when the long evenings seem to be bringing problems on to the streets. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, the provisions of which have now been commenced, has rightly been introduced as one measure to ensure that people feel safe in their homes and communities. The Liberal Democrats have always advocated a twin-track approach to tackling antisocial behaviour by supporting more police on the streets and activities to divert our young people away from trouble in the first place.
Petty crime and antisocial behaviour were on the increase and the 2004 act—thanks to Liberal Democrat influence—deals with the causes of antisocial behaviour rather than with simply punishment of the symptoms. The 2004 act is considerably different from the draconian bill that was first introduced. As a result of considered amendments, it offers workable solutions to the problems that many local communities face.
However, we must be honest. It is right to debate the subject, but the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is not the only measure that will cure the problem. Shortly after I was elected back in 2003, the local council, in conjunction with strong community organisations and the police, dealt effectively with antisocial behaviour issues in parts of my area in south Edinburgh. The police set up a strong youth action team with dedicated police officers. They engaged with local children and diverted them away from causing the serious trouble that they used to cause. As a result of the introduction of the youth action team, calls to the police dropped by more than 40 per cent over the summer of 2003. The approach was so successful that the then Deputy Minister for Communities—Mary Mulligan—came to visit, as it was an example of best practice. I think that members of a parliamentary committee also came.
That great work has been extended to other areas of south Edinburgh. The police are organising late-night football competitions in Gracemount and there have been huge improvements in the quality of recreational facilities as a result of the considerable amount of money that the City of Edinburgh Council has made available. There are new all-weather football pitches, basketball courts and playgrounds and calls to the police about antisocial behaviour are now at an all-time low. No area of my constituency is now considered by the council to be a problem and the youth action team strategy is being rolled out across the whole city—I congratulate the City of Edinburgh Council on that. Earlier this week, I spoke to the council's leader, Donald Anderson, and he assured me that the number of teams will be raised from four to six and that the approach is indeed being rolled out throughout Edinburgh. Such things were achieved before the act came into force.
However, in many areas of Scotland, the powers in the 2004 act are needed. For example, the antisocial behaviour strategies that are mentioned in the motion examine more closely the facilities and services that are available to under-16s and adults in an area that could prevent antisocial behaviour. There may also be rare instances in which the dispersal powers that are contained in the act might be used.
I was disappointed by recent comments made by Councillor Sheila Gilmore of the City of Edinburgh Council. She is in charge of tackling antisocial behaviour in the city and she claimed that the police are now frightened of using some of the powers in the new act. That is utter nonsense. Rather than thinking about meddling with operational matters, we must congratulate the police on the job that they are doing. When the bill was being considered at stage 1, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland had serious reservations about dispersal powers. The chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary told ministers:
"ACPOS considers that current police powers are adequate"
and that the proposals for dispersal orders "would not be practical". Surely Councillor Gilmore cannot be surprised if the police do not want to use those powers. Some people would argue that problems are worse in Glasgow—others can decide whether that is correct—but I do not think that Glasgow has used any dispersal orders at all.
I welcome the real difference that police, council officials and local communities are making to antisocial behaviour and I know that the correct tools for each local area will be used to tackle the problems. Acceptable behaviour contracts, restorative justice projects and an expansion of recreational facilities are all part of the approach. Scotland's communities are getting safer—I hope that politicians welcome that and will do their bit to reduce the fear of crime that exists in many areas.
It is a pleasure for me to open for Labour in the debate. As the motion recognises, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which was spearheaded by Labour ministers, is already having an impact in tackling the blight of antisocial behaviour and will have an even greater impact in the future.
Tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour has been at the heart of Labour's agenda, as our party is tired of the communities that we represent having their quality of life destroyed by the selfish, antisocial behaviour of a few. We are determined to stand up for the vast majority of people who want to live in safety and peace. That is why, at the last election, Scottish Labour stood on a platform of tackling antisocial behaviour, which was endorsed by the people of Scotland; it is why Labour put that issue at the heart of the partnership agreement; and it is why we should congratulate the Scottish Executive—especially the ministers who ensured that the act was passed—on introducing legislation that is already making a difference.
As someone who represents the north-east, I am keenly aware of people who have had their quality of life improved as a result of the act. I am sure that we will hear from other members how the application of antisocial behaviour orders is making a difference throughout the country, from tackling vandalism to allowing vulnerable older people to live in their homes free from the blight of noisy neighbours. In the north-east, especially, the new law is bringing about change for the better. Local agencies are putting the powers in the act to good use, and others around the country should follow their example. I welcome the fact that the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been granted by the local authority in Aberdeen is among the highest in Scotland—not because the problems that we have in Aberdeen are different from those in any other community in Scotland, but because the council has a long-standing track record of success in implementing ASBOs.
Does the member recognise the fact that the number of ASBOs that are issued is a measure not of success but of failure?
I have addressed that issue. As I said, the problems that we face are no different from those that are faced in other parts of Scotland, and the council has been right to issue those ASBOs. I have met people who have benefited as a result of that; that is evidence of success, not failure.
The council's ability to use the new powers successfully has been enhanced by Executive funding for local authorities to make the new legislation work. Over the next two years, Aberdeen City Council will receive more than £3.5 million, and communities are already benefiting as a result of that. I have met those who have benefited.
It is not only the local authority that is using its new powers; Grampian police have been leading Scotland in tackling antisocial behaviour through the new law. In particular, the residents of Beach Boulevard in Aberdeen—who, for years, have had to put up with noise and nuisance from boy racers who have gathered in their community—have benefited from the new law by the police putting in place a dispersal zone there. That shows that Labour is leading the way in tackling such issues not only nationally, but at local level. It was after local Labour representatives Lewis Macdonald MSP, Frank Doran MP and Councillor Jim Hunter, working together, met the community and the police that the dispersal zone was established.
There have been well-publicised disagreements between me and Mike Rumbles over the issue, and I am aware that his opposition to dispersal zones is shared by some of his Liberal colleagues at Westminster. We have also heard doubts about the policy from Mike Pringle. However, the fact is that the measure that was taken at Beach Boulevard was exactly what the new legislation is for. I also say to Miss Goldie that there is no evidence of the problem moving elsewhere. It is clear that the measure has been a total success.
That is a rather startling, paradoxical statement. The power has been used only once, so we do not know how it is operating. The fact is that it is not being used.
That is a paradoxical statement because the measure is working, as the statistics show. There has been a 53 per cent drop in the number of incidents of antisocial behaviour that are reported to the police in that area in the past three months, which has led the police to extend the duration of the dispersal zone for a further three months. The police think that it is working, and I think that we should take their advice on the issue.
Crucially, local residents who, for far too long, have been disturbed by the activities of the boy racers have said that their community has been transformed for the better as a result. Those who criticise the actions that have been taken by Grampian police should speak to the local residents—who have benefited hugely from those actions—and change their minds. We have heard opposition to the powers from the Opposition parties, but they have clearly been proved wrong. I hope that more police forces in Scotland will follow the excellent example of Grampian police.
Addressing antisocial behaviour is not just about punitive measures; that is why the motion that I lodged earlier this year on antisocial behaviour highlighted the give the Broch a break initiative, of which Stewart Stevenson will be aware. That initiative, which was run by Grampian police, not only tackled vandalism and underage drinking, but organised events that were aimed at providing alternative activities for young people in particular.
The new legislation is being backed up by the Executive with dedicated antisocial behaviour teams and community wardens working in our neighbourhoods alongside extra police officers. There is no excuse for the powers in the act not to be used effectively throughout Scotland to tackle a wide range of antisocial behaviour. Many people—from national groups such as the Scottish Retail Consortium to local communities who believe that the powers could make a difference to their lives—want the powers to be used more often, not less. The north-east is proof that, when the new legislation is used, it is effective in tackling antisocial behaviour and improving people's lives.
That is why Labour led the Parliament in introducing the 2004 act and it is why we are championing it in our communities. In doing that, we can ensure that our communities are better places in which to live.
The debate comes at a time when the activities of young people are in the spotlight once again. Many have condemned young people for the wearing of hooded tops, and some of the comments, quite frankly, have verged on the hysterical.
I agree that it is reasonable that people should remove the hoods of their tops when they are in a shopping centre so that their faces are not obscured, just as it is reasonable for motorcyclists to remove their crash helmets in the same circumstances. That is particularly true when someone enters premises such as a bank, as their appearance can cause alarm even if that is unintended. I used to ride a motorbike, and I found it a nuisance that I had to remove my crash helmet before I popped into my local bank. On colder days, I also had to remove a garment that resembled a ski mask, which I wore below my crash helmet to keep warm. Only once did I forget to take those off before entering my bank, but the look on the face of the nearest teller immediately reminded me that I had just walked into a bank wearing a leather jacket, gloves, a ski mask and a crash helmet. I was doing nothing wrong and I was not acting in a threatening manner, but because of the way in which I was dressed, people around me had a different perspective.
I use that example because, in debates such as this, we must remember that antisocial behaviour is sometimes in the eye of the beholder rather than based on the objective reality. There is no denying that there are people who behave in an appalling manner and cause untold misery to all around them. They should be dealt with, and I welcome the action and the initiatives that are being taken. However, there is a world of difference between behaviour that is criminal, such as vandalism, and groups of youngsters hanging around with their friends. I suspect that there are a few members who thought that they looked great when they met their pals on a Saturday night dressed as new romantics, punks, hippies, mods, rockers—or perhaps even teds, depending on their age. Groups of youngsters who are dressed in the fashion of the day have always seemed alarming to older generations: that is in the nature of the difference between the generations. When we are older, we forget what we were like when we were 15, and that allows us to find it intimidating to see groups of people who are dressed in what appears to be a peculiar manner hanging around together.
It may seem obvious to say that we should reward good behaviour rather than reinforce bad behaviour, but if the current rash of television programmes that deal with the disruptive behaviour of children are to be believed, many people have forgotten or have never learned that simple fact. If we ignore our children when they are good, they will never learn that their good behaviour is noticed and appreciated. It sometimes feels as though the Executive has forgotten that simple lesson in basic psychology. We should reinforce the behaviour that we want by paying it attention instead of reinforcing the behaviour that we want to discourage by focusing on it most of the time. If we do the latter, the result is a downward spiral of criticism, punishment and criminalisation when, in fact, we should separate out the good from the bad, then reward the good behaviour and punish the bad.
We seem to be concentrating on highlighting the bad behaviour while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. Diversionary schemes for those who have been involved in antisocial behaviour are welcome, but what about extra-curricular activities for those who behave themselves? We have all heard about schemes for kids who steal cars, which teach them about car mechanics and give them off-road driving lessons. I am not knocking such schemes, but what about the kids who do not steal cars? Do they not deserve to have their good behaviour acknowledged?
Significant additional resources have been put in through, for example, community safety partnerships to make activities available to a wider range of young people, especially during school holiday periods. Does the member accept that the type of activity that he suggests is being funded by the Executive?
I am not knocking what the Executive is doing by funding such schemes; I am pointing out that we tend to concentrate on the bad behaviour of young people without rewarding good behaviour. Given the problem that is created by the loss of sports fields and playing fields for young people in every community across the country, it is not reasonable to suggest that everything in the garden is rosy and that all our investment is creating a situation in which young people are happy and content with the facilities that are available to them.
It is little wonder that many people—not just the young—feel aggrieved at the concentration of effort on those who misbehave. It is all very well to criminalise those who behave in a criminal manner, but perhaps we need to identify which youngsters are the real troublemakers and which are just hanging around on the periphery.
It seems to me that, in any setting, people in a group often fall into three basic categories: those who will cause trouble no matter what; those who will not cause any problems; and those who, falling somewhere in the middle, will lean towards one or the other mode of behaviour depending on the prevailing circumstances. The trick is to ensure that those in the middle lean towards not causing problems. If we can achieve that, the vast majority in any group will not cause a problem. I believe that, if we rewarded good behaviour so that young people got the chance to try out new things or to spend their time in positive extra-curricular activities, the group in the middle would lean towards that type of unproblematic behaviour. That would lessen the problems that many communities face and allow the police to concentrate on their prime activity of catching criminals and dealing with criminality. The police would then be able to focus their resources on those who will cause trouble no matter what, rather than act as street-level social workers or youth workers.
That is why we need to invest in making clubs and sports facilities available locally and affordable for young people. Perhaps most important of all, we need to ensure that we give young people hope that they will have a job with some prospects, so that they can look forward to the future with keen anticipation. The consequences of our failing to do that are too grim to imagine.
Never has legislation been more welcomed by individuals and communities than the act that the Parliament passed to combat antisocial behaviour. Being an elected member is perhaps the only job in which one has the opportunity to gauge the blight that has been caused in the lives of those many constituents who, sometimes for many years, have been on the receiving end of relentless antisocial behaviour. My constituents who are victims of antisocial behaviour are no different from those of other members; to varying extents, they have suffered from those who do not give a jot about how their behaviour impacts on the lives of others.
I do not accept that all who display antisocial behaviour should be made subject to an antisocial behaviour order. In my view, such orders are a last resort that should be used when all else fails. I hope that, when the minister reviews local authorities' progress on the issue, she will take account of the use of alternatives when she determines local authorities' success in combating antisocial behaviour. The strategies that have been developed by the partners in each local authority area contain various remedies. In my area, those alternatives also have community input and community support. The options that are available are working, because they allow police, social work, education and housing authorities to work with and support those who are affected by antisocial behaviour in finding a remedy—which sometimes might involve the assistance of health professionals—in order to bring peace to the community.
During its passage through the Parliament, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill attracted much criticism—we have heard it again this morning—because of the perception that the bill would target all young people. To my knowledge, no antisocial behaviour reports have been pursued against young people in my constituency who are under the age of 15. The vast majority of such reports have been against adults. Those reports have been a wake-up call, in particular to those owner-occupiers who believed that they could do as they pleased because they were not answerable to any landlord.
Forgive me for giving an example, but one owner-occupier in my constituency regularly came home under the influence and played loud music in a way that disturbed the lives of the neighbours and occasionally frightened their children, who would awake with a start because of the loud music. A neighbour decided that enough was enough and called the police. On their arrival, the police could not get an answer at the door because the music was so loud. When they eventually gained entry and the music was turned off, one would have thought that there would be peace at last, but that was not the case. The inebriated owner-occupier decided that the neighbour had no right to complain—he thought that he should be able to do as he wanted—so he proceeded to challenge the complainant. Fortunately, the police, who were aware that that might occur, had not left the area and were able to defuse the situation quickly. The police advised the neighbours in the street to contact East Ayrshire Council's antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, thereby demonstrating the partnership approach.
Will the member give way?
Let me finish.
The neighbours who were affected gave evidence in their own homes to the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator. Thanks to that evidence and the evidence that was produced by the police, the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator was able to issue a warning letter to the owner-occupier. Not only did that owner-occupier's behaviour change, but others in the area sat up and took notice of the fact that they can now be held to account for their behaviour.
Does Mrs Jamieson agree that the man's behaviour might have been modified much earlier if the police had acted appropriately by charging him with breach of the peace and dealing with him in court? That would have cut out a lot of delay and additional hassle for the neighbours, whose complaints were totally justified.
I find it extremely difficult to answer Bill Aitken's question because a report on the individual had already been sent to the procurator fiscal before the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator got involved. We may well need to return to that issue.
I will use that same example when I have a meeting in the constituency with a housing association that is not pursuing antisocial behaviour as vigorously as it has the powers to do. The housing association believes that the costs of pursuing such matters are beyond its means, despite the moneys that have been allocated by the Executive. In its view, such actions are not within its remit and are solely a matter for the police. I ask the minister to consider making a regulation to force such housing associations to exercise their powers and thereby to protect their tenants and communities.
No individual, family or community need suffer antisocial behaviour, as they now have a remedy that the Parliament should be proud of introducing. On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the success of the legislation to date. I share their confidence that it will help to build a better and safer community for all in the future.
The Executive motion states:
"That the Parliament believes that people in all parts of Scotland should be able to live free from fear and harassment".
If Cathy Jamieson is looking for a fight on that issue, it is clear that she will not get it. However, she may well find that the Parliament is a bit more sceptical about her need to persuade people of the existence of a problem that is manifest in the streets and recreational areas and on public transport in many of our towns and cities. Basically, the Executive was forced to do something and its response was the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. I remind Hugh Henry, yet again, that at the end of the day we supported the 2004 act absolutely, despite having reservations about significant sections of it.
The response that is contained in the legislation has been summarised today by the Minister for Justice, who claimed certain successes. After such a brief period, it is naive, to say the least, to claim that the legislation can be seen as a success. I accept that, after such a brief period, it would be unfair for me to claim that it is a failure but let us consider what has happened since the legislation was enacted. There have been four closure orders. The type of closure order that I have seen reported by the police related to cases in which conduct on premises was such that there were frequent disturbances and breaches of the peace. Why were the people involved not acted against and dealt with by the courts?
There have been 10 antisocial behaviour orders. I accept that such orders are a tool that can be used in the fight against antisocial behaviour. However, I was somewhat disappointed to see that, in one case at Linlithgow sheriff court, a custodial sentence was imposed only after an antisocial behaviour order had been breached three times. For the sort of people with whom we are dealing, ASBOs are not likely to be a significant deterrent.
There are also seizure orders. To some extent, those could be used to deal with the boy racers in Aberdeen, but I must ask what Grampian police were doing about the problem before it became so serious. Would not their traffic department have spent some time looking at precisely what was happening? The problem could have been removed without resort to the 2004 act.
Does Bill Aitken recognise that often orders to seize vehicles, such as those that were made in Fife, come only after other measures have been tried? Police in Fife had warned the young man whose vehicle they seized last week on at least one previous occasion, if not two.
Christine May has an advantage over me, as I do not know about the Fife case. However, it is apparent that in the Grampian and Aberdeen area no such measures were used before a seizure order was made.
Does the member accept that the order was made to deal not with traffic offences, but with boy racers gathering in the community and creating nuisance while they were gathered?
They were making a lot of noise and disturbing local residents. By any standard, that is a breach of the peace. Why was action not taken?
The minister tells us that a number of fixed penalties have been issued. She did not tell us whether any of them had been paid, or how many had been paid. She made the constructive comment that wardens have a role to play, but they are certainly not a replacement for police. She mentioned the involvement of the Scottish Retail Consortium. When I speak to people from the retail trade, they complain about the cost of securing their premises, which is necessary because insufficient police are around, and about the number of people who reoffend while on bail.
As I have said before in the chamber, there are two factors that govern human behaviour. One is the certainty of discovery, and the other is adequate punishment. There are more police officers in post, but they are not where they should be—out on the streets. We must examine our court system, to see how it could be made more effective in dealing with minor offending. Having seen the United States system in operation, I am very attracted by what happens there. I know that the minister has visited a community court in New York, and I think that she agrees that we could consider that experiment and that we may be able to emulate it in certain respects. However, if we are to implement the model, we will need to re-examine our procedures and the way in which we are hide-bound by European regulations.
Although the problems are not caused exclusively by young people—far from it—the existing children's hearings system is not coping with them. That issue must be considered. Of most concern is the fact that, despite long and weary debate about antisocial behaviour in the chamber, the Executive refuses to recognise that there must be a toughening-up of attitudes to disposals for offences of disorder. We must ensure that fines are paid, because they are not being paid at the moment. We must ensure that community service is done, which is often not happening at the moment. We cannot allow the farce of early release, regardless of whether the individual concerned has behaved himself, to reduce the deterrent impact of custodial sentences.
We accept that it is still early days for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. However, to suggest that the act is a great panacea, as a number of Labour members have done, is naive beyond belief.
I lost count of the number of times during the passage of what is now the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 that those of us who advocated a different approach were accused directly of wanting not to address the problem, of wanting to ignore it and of wanting not even to acknowledge that it exists. As I have done in other debates on antisocial behaviour, I begin by saying clearly that antisocial behaviour is a problem that has a profound impact and that something must be done about it. However, all along I and many organisations that gave evidence to the Communities Committee during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill have argued that there has been too much emphasis on enforcement—I am not saying that enforcement is never necessary—and not enough emphasis on positive interventions that can change behaviour in a more constructive way.
A revival of youth work in Scotland is long overdue. Much can be achieved by working constructively with young people from an early age to engage with their attitudes and values. People who talk about respect must accept that it cannot be enforced, but can be learned. We should have examined the children's hearings system, which Bill Aitken mentioned. The system faces many problems that must be addressed to ensure that it is more effective. If measures had been taken in those areas—even if there had been political weight behind them—all of us would have been willing to consider what further enforcement powers were necessary. However, the Executive's whole approach has been the other way round. The focus on enforcement fails to address the causes of behaviour and therefore risks displacing it—moving it around—or even compounding it.
Is Patrick Harvie not falling into the trap of characterising antisocial behaviour as a problem that is associated simply with young people? Is that not completely wrong, given the facts of the matter? Much antisocial behaviour is not caused by young people.
I made that point many times during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. However, there can be no doubt that the passage of the bill and the debate that accompanied it increased the perception that young people are the problem, not the solution.
The member is fuelling that perception.
I am not. Will the member explain how I am fuelling it?
Patrick Harvie is going on about young people and the work that needs to be done with them. I do not dispute that that is necessary in some areas. However, it is wrong to characterise young people as the only individuals who cause antisocial behaviour.
I agree entirely that that is wrong and I challenged the perception in committee during stage 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.
During the passage of the bill, the Executive called time and again for there to be more tools in the box. I argued then and repeat now that some of those tools are blunt instruments. I did not support their creation and I will not support a motion that calls for their use. I want to consider two examples of enforcement as they have played out south of the border—in England and Wales—and to talk about how that resonates with what is happening in Scotland.
Child curfew zones are not exactly the same as the dispersal measures that have been designed here, but they are similar in one respect—they deal with the presence of people, rather than people's behaviour. Richard Baker said that the behaviour of those whom he called boy racers was the problem. However, the legislation deals with presence.
I will take one more intervention.
Again, it is not a case of targeting young people—the boy racers are over 35.
I think that I have dealt with that point. The focus on people's presence can result in innocent people—such as the 15-year-old whose case was taken on by Liberty south of the border—being dealt with by the same measures.
A second example—Stewart Maxwell referred to this—is the new concept of antisocial clothing. Mr Blair and Mr Prescott have both given their backing to the Bluewater shopping centre's ban on hooded tops and baseball caps. Again, the focus is not on behaviour, but on stereotypes. Mr Blair and Mr Prescott are talking about bans and restricting people's personal liberties. That is the end result of the agenda that is being pursued through this legislation.
How will the Executive respond when such measures are tried in Scotland, as is beginning to happen? This is not just about how to police bad behaviour; it is about the nature of public space and our rights to use it, which are compromised when public space is replaced by private premises. It is no coincidence, and entirely understandable, that a shopping centre—a private business—recognises that young people spend less money and more time hanging around, which they should have the right to do in public places, and sees such people as a problem. If attempts are made in Scotland to place restrictions on the rights of people to dress as they like, without regard to their behaviour, what will the minister do?
The Executive has made laudable efforts to involve young people in political change and to become aware of their power to be the change in relation to global issues. Why can we not involve young people more in the local issues of antisocial behaviour that affect them as well as everyone else in society? What are local authorities doing to involve young people and to ensure that their voices are heard? Respect is a two-way street; we must give it to people and not simply demand it from them.
I was content to support the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill in the full knowledge that the provisions contained therein did not represent any kind of panacea, pace Bill Aitken; the bill was only one part of the Executive's wider package of reforms. Nonetheless, the measures are important and are beginning to play a significant role in the creation of communities free from fear and harassment.
Members will recall that the debate that took place during the passage of the bill was sometimes so heated that common sense seemed to have deserted some Opposition members. Colin Fox, whose speech will follow mine today, is a sober-sided and assiduous colleague on the Justice 2 Committee, but I recall him beginning his contribution to the debate on 2 October 2003 with the immortal lines:
"I know that Labour members are anxious. They have the smell of blood in their nostrils and want to get on to punishment, punishment, punishment."—[Official Report, 2 October 2003; c 2299.]
Wow. That was so melodramatic that it was almost Grand Guignol. The characterisation of Labour members' motives was reasonably entertaining at the time, but it bore absolutely no relation to the actual driving force behind the legislation, which came from the communities that we all seek to represent. Antisocial behaviour was and still is perceived to be a major issue for many communities in Glasgow and throughout Scotland.
Too many people have to live with the results of antisocial behaviour. The provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 were designed expressly to tackle the behaviour of a small minority of people of all ages—I say that to Mr Harvie—and from all backgrounds that can and does make the daily lives of a significant percentage of Scotland's citizens a misery.
Will the member give way?
I will in a second. No responsible Government could ignore or simply refuse to accept that fact. When the Labour-led Executive took action, it was correct to do so.
No one was proposing that we should ignore that fact. The main point of my speech was that people of all ages can be guilty of antisocial behaviour. Does the member acknowledge that, although the act focused disproportionately on young people and the debate about it gave rise to a perception that has resulted in discrimination against young people, the problem remains with all age groups?
I agree with the last clause of Mr Harvie's assertion, but the notion that the legislation is disproportionate is of his own making and relates in no way to the act that the Parliament passed. I inform him that Government strategy to combat antisocial behaviour is not based on an unthinking, disproportionate, draconian approach. On the contrary, the coalition's aim is to attempt to change people's behaviour and not simply to deal with the results of antisocial activities; it is about communities developing solutions to their problems.
I will give a few examples of that co-operative, inclusive approach, as outlined in Glasgow's antisocial behaviour strategy, which represents local government acting in concert with the Executive. A citywide group has been formed and given the responsibility to develop and implement the strategy. Because there is a recognition that antisocial behaviour is a multifaceted problem, the strategy is only one element among many in the delivery of a partnership approach to tackle the problems that contribute to antisocial behaviour. Central to that approach is a recognition of the vital role that local communities play both in the action required and the commitment needed to give the strategy the best chance of success.
In my Glasgow Anniesland constituency, the Drumchapel community safety forum, which is charged with the local development of the citywide approach, has been at the heart of a number of positive initiatives. For example, it has organised an antisocial behaviour focus group, including police and housing providers, which has established an information-sharing protocol allowing gaps in service provision to be identified and addressed. The group has representatives from local housing organisations in Drumchapel and Blairdardie as well as the community safety patrol officers, local elected members and Streetwatch Glasgow.
The forum's activities include making local people aware of the support and assistance that is available to them. Stewart Maxwell asked for examples of positive extra-curricular activities. I will give him a particularly successful one: the forum organises sports activities for local young people on Thursday and Friday evenings in the Donald Dewar leisure centre in my constituency. Indeed, more than 120 young people regularly attend on Friday evenings. They are able to make use of the centre's facilities and access advice and information about a range of community safety issues. I am pleased to report that that commendable service for local young people picked up the Glasgow City Council award for the most innovative project in 2005.
Those examples of one forum's work in my constituency point the way forward to create a successful antisocial behaviour strategy that seeks to involve and not to demonise or ostracise. That approach is preventive, not punitive. It seeks to hand control back to communities and not to exert centralised control over them. It encourages co-operation, not confrontation.
I believe that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is, alongside the other Government measures, just beginning to make a positive difference to the everyday lives of my constituents and the people whom we all seek to represent throughout Scotland. On that basis, it is to be commended.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a quotation from Bill Butler or any of the Labour members showing the extravagant claims that they made last year about the bill. However, I sense in Labour members' speeches the frustration that they clearly feel that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 has not lived up to its billing. That sense of frustration is also clear in the minister's motion.
Will the member give way?
I will let the member intervene in a minute.
The motion rightly talks about the right of people in Scotland
"to live free from fear and harassment".
I agree that people in Scotland are entitled to that and I hope that nobody in the Parliament would dissent from that view. People in Scotland also have the right to live free from the fear of poverty, unemployment, exploitation at work, the cold in winter and poor health, but the Executive appears to be far less interested in addressing those fears.
The motion invites us to debate the effectiveness of the act. The act's effectiveness is questionable and it is right that we should remind the minister that, when the Parliament was discussing the legislation, many members had concerns about the proposals, on the ground that there are better ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. The best way of tackling antisocial behaviour is by empowering communities and by providing resources and facilities for community support services to help people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. We need effective interventions to address the problem via fully resourced social work and community services. We could even increase the number of police officers who work in and are accountable to the communities concerned. Such avenues were obvious to the Executive, but it chose to ignore the funding demands arising from tried and tested methods of addressing the problem.
Colin Fox thinks deeply on the issues that we are considering, so I am astonished to hear him say that we have ignored funding and resources. Does he accept that the £113 million that has been allocated to back up antisocial behaviour strategies is additional to the £10 million that is available to community safety partnerships to support the voluntary sector organisations that deliver for young people and the £63 million or so that has been put into youth justice programmes? Does he accept that a significant amount of money has been allocated precisely to take the action that is needed to tackle the causes and the symptoms of the problem?
The minister mentioned the £113 million for ASBOs when she intervened during an earlier speech. I will talk about funding later.
It is clear that the Executive is annoyed that, a year after the 2004 act was passed, local authorities are not using the range of powers in relation to which the £113 million was allocated. That is because local authorities throughout Scotland prefer to use more effective ways of dealing with the problems that communities face.
I do not know whether the minister has seen the Labour Research Department's recent publication—Labour members used to read those documents and I hope that they still do. The experience in England and Wales, where antisocial behaviour legislation has been in force for longer than it has been in Scotland, indicates that ASBOs are criminalising people for non-criminal behaviour, which is precisely what the advocates of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill said would not happen. New figures for Scotland indicate that the time served in custody by children has more than doubled, from 300 days in 2003 to more than 800 days. The average time spent inside by children under 16 has increased from nine days to 28 days. I accept that that is partly because there is a severe shortage of secure units, but the situation is hardly likely to improve if ASBOs are more widely imposed on under-16s.
The motion acknowledges the need to
"build confidence in our communities"
throughout Scotland. It is perfectly clear that we can do that by supporting measures that we know will make a difference. Patrick Harvie was quite right to highlight issues about youth projects. How many youth projects, sports and leisure centres and playing fields have closed in the year since the bill was passed? I visited a highly valued and effective youth project in West Lothian last week, but there are anxieties about whether funding for that project will continue. The minister talks about spending £113 million, but funding such youth projects would constitute effective intervention to deal with the problem.
I support community development and the important work that is being done with young people. However, does the member realise that the majority of people who cause disruption in my constituency are older folk who get drunk all weekend and try to beat up their neighbours, who have to phone the police to complain? People should not have to live like that. We are not just talking about youngsters.
Cathy Peattie is right. The vast majority of ASBOs are granted in relation to older people. However, provisions in the 2004 act specifically targeted young people and Labour members should not be allowed to sweep that fact under the carpet.
The minister urges local authorities to use ASBOs and even talks about taking away £64 million of funding if they refuse to do so. A paper from Heriot-Watt University contains figures that make it clear that local authorities in Scotland have largely given what we might call the rubber ear to the proposals. It is clear that local authorities do not want or need the powers in the 2004 act. They regard the act's approach as bureaucratic and cumbersome and they think that there are better ways of dealing with the problem.
The message from local authorities is loud and clear. In 21 local authority areas, specialist teams have been established to deal with antisocial behaviour. I welcome the use of investigating officers, community safety officers and social protection teams, but it is clear that the 10 local authorities that have the lowest number of ASBO applications all use specialist teams. The wide variation in the use of ASBOs among local authorities suggests that a political imperative is at play.
The Scottish Executive's March 2005 social research paper, "Use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders in Scotland", to which Colin Fox referred, makes interesting reading. It confirms that there are huge discrepancies in take-up among local authority areas in Scotland, which are linked not to the prevalence of antisocial behaviour but to a number of other factors, including the different speeds at which local authorities and registered social landlords have geared up to use the powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The fact that responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour has been located in housing departments has also skewed applications.
One element is missing from the statistics in the paper. They do not identify local authorities that decided not to use the powers or that decided to drag their feet on the matter. The paper highlights Glasgow as an area that has a relatively low level of applications for ASBOs, but Inverclyde Council sticks out like a sore thumb: there were no applications in the area in 2002-03 and there was just one application in 2003-04, although surely there are instances of antisocial behaviour in the area that need to be addressed.
We have been told and we will be told again that local authorities are required to prepare with chief constables a strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour, which will help to form the basis of outcome agreements for funding. The denial or reduction of funding for local authorities that drag their feet will not provide one iota of help to the ordinary men and women who are being denied the benefits that the granting of an ASBO can bring in certain situations. At question time last week, I asked what remedies are proposed for citizens who live in areas in which the local authority is failing properly to address antisocial behaviour. Unfortunately, the Deputy Minister for Justice chose to interpret my question as a request for direct control over the actions of local authorities. His interpretation was wrong and my question remains: what remedy do those people have?
The social research paper suggests that as many as two thirds of ASBOs have been breached. We need answers on that. What is the breach rate and what is the response to breaches?
A number of members talked about antisocial behaviour and young people. We must consider whether the current approach strikes the right balance. I will leave aside the headline-grabbing, tough soundbites about neds and hoodies and consider the hard statistics. Young people are more often the victims than the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Parliament information centre produced a paper in September 2003 describing the findings of the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime. According to the SPICe paper, the study identified a close link between victimisation and offending and concluded:
"Being a victim of crime at the age of 12 is one of the most powerful indicators that a child will offend at 15. Likewise, offending at age 12 brings a strong possibility of victimisation at 15."
In the context of the member's comments, does he agree that it is important that we send the message to all agencies that simply to have a blanket ruling out of the use of powers in the 2004 act would fail the young people who risk becoming the victims of crime?
I agree—perhaps the minister can convey that to her deputy minister.
The study went on to say:
"there is a close correlation between levels of parental supervision and offending".
However, it also said:
"The strongest correlation is between the numbers of friends of an individual young offender who are offenders … and the individual's own offending."
The Scottish Executive's consultation paper in 2003 stated:
"a particularly worrying development in recent years is the number of children and young people who are involved in persistent crime and anti-social behaviour. While it is a small proportion of the total, this group put other children in the community at risk of getting involved in anti-social behaviour and are responsible for untold damage and misery."
The case for isolating the hard-core minority has been made over and over again, but, in taking that action, we must provide an alternative focus for those who hang around that minority and who are at risk of being sucked into problems and trouble. If we accept that the state has a duty to intervene, we must recognise how much better it is to intervene positively by helping those in our society who struggle to provide alternatives and who give up their own time to help to run voluntary groups than it is to intervene by clearing up the mess of failure. The requirement for an ASBO is a measure of our failure, not our success.
As some members will know, I recently brought a debate to the chamber on Renfrew and Inverclyde scout association. I do not have time to go through all the arguments again, but despite the warm words of support, encouraging letters and glossy brochures from the Executive, the association has received not one brown penny from the Executive for the Lapwing Lodge project and it is not alone in that. Why do we continue to force our voluntary organisations to jump through hoops to obtain even the smallest grants, whether at Scottish Executive or local authority level? Why are well-established organisations left to wither on the funding vine, watching shiny new projects being launched in a blaze of publicity, only to see them close a few years later when the prospect of mainstream funding disappears? When will the Executive learn that short-term media hits and photo opportunities are just that?
By all means let us monitor the use of antisocial behaviour orders and see where they can be improved, but in doing so let us recognise that, if we fail to fund the positive, we will continue to pay the price of failure, which is a much higher bill.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to examine the initial impact of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. I will focus on the act's impact on my local authority area of North Lanarkshire and in particular on the impact of ASBOs and interim ASBOs in challenging and ultimately changing antisocial behaviour.
The communities that I represent were crying out for measures to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour, against which ASBOs are an important tool. The vast majority of decent people in our communities are sick and tired of the destruction and mayhem that is caused by a small minority of people who seem to be oblivious to the impact of their behaviour. Admittedly, ASBOs, as reformed under the 2004 act, are not the only way in which we can challenge and change antisocial behaviour, but they can play a vital part in protecting the quality of life of many ordinary men, women and children in Scotland.
The act provides that
"a person engages in antisocial behaviour if he—
(a) acts in a manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress; or
(b) 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 him."
In practice, that includes a wide range of behaviour, such as verbal abuse, excessive noise, drunken and loutish conduct, graffiti writing and intimidation. The definition is wide, but flexibility is needed to protect people from the many forms that antisocial behaviour takes.
ASBOs were not introduced as a substitute for the criminal law or civil proceedings; they were introduced to help local authorities to protect people within their areas. ASBOs are often characterised as tools to deal with serious neighbour disputes in which mediation and other approaches have not worked. It is important to recognise that ASBOs are available to deal with antisocial behaviour wherever it occurs.
Antisocial behaviour often has the greatest impact on people when it affects their home life, so it is understandable that ASBOs have been seen by some as a housing management tool. However, they are not restricted to dealing with neighbour problems or antisocial behaviour in a particular housing sector. They can, for example, be used to deal with antisocial conduct in and around retail premises or in parks or transport hubs. In North Lanarkshire, that message is finally getting through. In Airdrie, three ASBOs have been granted to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour in and around the town centre and those orders are working.
I recently spoke to Matt Costello, who heads up the antisocial task force that is located in North Lanarkshire's housing department. He was positive about the improvements that have been made to full and interim ASBOs and stated that, in North Lanarkshire, 122 ASBOs and interim ASBOs have been granted to date. Interestingly, he told me that between 80 and 85 per cent of ASBOs that are granted are successful, in that they alter antisocial behaviour and the ASBO is never breached. That is an important point.
Colin Fox raised concerns that ASBOs could too easily criminalise people, but that is not shown by the evidence from North Lanarkshire—in fact, quite the opposite. Properly used ASBOs have demonstrated clearly to those who engage in antisocial behaviour that communities and local authorities will not tolerate their behaviour. The challenge of being subject to an ASBO has successfully changed their behaviour.
Can the member explain why North Lanarkshire Council has applied for 122 ASBOs and interim ASBOs when adjacent authorities and authorities with the same socioeconomic problems have applied for virtually nil? Why is there such a huge disparity between North Lanarkshire and other authorities?
It is not for me to speak for other local authority areas, but I know that North Lanarkshire is committed to dealing with antisocial behaviour. The council knows that its communities care about antisocial behaviour and it wants to demonstrate that it will tackle it. It is using the powers that are available. Other local authorities have to face up to the same challenges, adopt the targets that North Lanarkshire has set and follow its good practice.
Matt Costello told me that the remaining 15 to 20 per cent of people who do not alter their behaviour are more efficiently and speedily dealt with by the courts. He also stated that the use of short Scottish secure tenancies has an effect on antisocial behaviour similar to the effect of ASBOs. Increased funding from the Scottish Executive has meant that the service provided by the antisocial task force has been expanded. It now employs additional people and provides more resources to communities. In addition, Strathclyde police have seconded one of their officers to work with the task force on a daily basis.
Members of the task force will be taking their examples of good practice to Belfast and will provide training to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. They will be joined by local tenants and community groups to display the benefits that a good and effective antisocial behaviour task force can deliver and the difference that it can make to communities.
It is too early to assess the impact of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and other important Executive initiatives to combat antisocial behaviour, such as neighbourhood wardens, but the early signs from North Lanarkshire are positive. The balance is beginning to move towards protecting the right of the vast majority of people to a peaceful and fearless existence. I welcome the progress that the Executive has made. I urge the minister to continue to fight for the decent people who live in our communities. As Patrick Harvie said, respect is a two-way street. It is time that we gave respect to the vast majority of decent, hard-working families in Scotland.
The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is a promising piece of legislation that I fully support. Nevertheless, I realise that, as Bill Butler said, it is not a panacea, and it is still in its infancy.
Like MSPs throughout the chamber, constituents regularly raise the topic of antisocial behaviour in their correspondence with me. This morning I received yet another letter in a similar vein, from which I will quote. It said:
"Dear Mr Swinburne,
The situation is that my mother, in her late seventies, has been living in fear and misery for the past three to four years because of a very unsociable neighbour who has had an A.S.B.O. in place against him since May 2004. This, however, although improving the situation a little bit has not prevented him from breaking the order many times.
The worrying thing is that when brought to court for each offence, he gets off with it (because he just tells a pack of lies in court) and then laughs in my mother's face – which as you can imagine, is very distressing for her.
I thought that with the great publicity and high profile given to Anti Social Behaviour Orders in Scotland this would end my mother's misery, but in this case it does not seem to be a deterrent.
I would greatly appreciate it if we could arrange an appointment with you to discuss the matter further."
How would the minister advise the gentleman in that sad case? Would she or her deputy be prepared to sit in on the meeting with him and his mother to try to solve the problem, because I do not have the answer?
First, I condemn the comments made by Annabel Goldie, which generalised some of the antisocial activity of young people as being down to their not having a father. My father's father was a merchant seaman, so he was an absent father. Previous generations of war widows brought up their children in the most difficult of circumstances. Some of the most hard-working individuals I have ever met are single mothers who have put their children through university. To generalise the reasons for antisocial behaviour is typical of the views of some of the chattering classes.
I do not dispute for a minute what the member says, but does he accept that Miss Goldie was referring to certain statistics and research that showed that there was sometimes a problem with the children of single parents and the incidence of crime?
Individuals who seek to involve themselves in those statistics should get themselves into the real world of the hard-working individuals out there and the difficult circumstances that they face.
I commend the minister for delivering the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The Labour-led Executive has delivered legislation that will make a genuine difference to communities throughout Scotland. There are two main areas of enforcement of the legislation that I think require attention. One of them is youth services, to which Patrick Harvie referred and to which I will return.
However, I turn first to the police authorities and how they enforce the act. The minister and the deputy minister will know that on a number of occasions I have raised the issue of policing and the need to review how we deliver our police services. I believe that there is a need to modernise the way in which our police forces are mobilised and structured. I have been an elected representative for 11 years and the very same policing issues that were raised with me on 17 December 1993 were raised with me last night at a public meeting—issues relating to the deployment of police services. I do not think that our police forces have moved on in the new era of closed-circuit television systems and the internet. We need to consider how we modernise the approach that our police authorities take to delivering services to deal with many of the antisocial activities that have been mentioned.
There are a number of measures that do not require additional resources. We are obsessed with increasing the number of police officers, but that will not necessarily make a difference to my constituents who call the police office only to be treated in the most appalling manner when they report incidents in their community, a number of which are not followed through effectively. I have dealt with a number of individuals over the phone who have been dealt with in an appalling manner.
Problem solving saves police resources, but I do not see enough evidence that our police forces are considering ways in which they can solve problems. It would not require additional resources to ensure that there was stability in the police force, rather than the constant turnover of senior police officers.
Our obsession with police numbers is a red herring. We have to deploy our police resources in the areas where they are needed most. That might mean that the leafy suburbs do not get the same number of police officers as do areas such as Ruchazie in my constituency. We will have to review the way in which our police resources are deployed.
I turn to youth services. It is important to acknowledge that an element of the act was to ensure that we dealt with youth disorder. Parental accountability is an important issue. Too often I attend public meetings at which it is clear that parents believe that it is our role as politicians to deliver local youth services. I see a role for parents in that process. People do not have a God-given right to be a parent; parents have to play a role in partnership with communities in delivering services for their children.
We will have to improve the youth services that we deliver and acknowledge that although many of our services are of the highest standard, they are not being promoted in the way that they should be. I call on the minister to ensure that our local authorities modernise their approach to how they promote local services. I have attended public meetings on a number of occasions and told people that we have Olympic-sized swimming pools in Glasgow that are not being used to the extent that they should be and people have appeared to be surprised. Sometimes it is convenient for parents to be surprised because they do not always want to live up to their responsibilities. We should do more to ensure that they do so and to provide a national standard that young people can expect of their local youth services.
I welcome the act but plead with the minister to ensure that we can enforce it by modernising the police force and other authorities that are involved in its enforcement to ensure that we make progress.
An attractive pastime is to replay exciting events such as cup finals and league decider matches. There has been a certain element of that here: members have been replaying the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill debate because many thought that they scored goals and felt that their opponents scored own goals, which they relished.
I want to advance beyond that and consider how we can deal with the things that are not going well and build on the things that are going well. First we have to acknowledge that we are all genuinely keen on local democracy, which includes the right of people to get things wrong, whether, in some people's eyes, the French or the Dutch, or the councils that are imposing or not imposing ASBOs—they are elected to get on with it. The Executive and the Parliament have to co-operate and encourage people to work together but, ultimately, whether to impose an ASBO is a local decision, which we have to live with.
Members have outlined examples of good local practice of councils involving the community in the way that was written into the act. A strong element of the act is that the local strategy has to involve consulting communities, especially young people, about facilities and producing facilities that they can use. As others have said in this and other debates, we have to consider the affordability and accessibility of facilities, on which some councils, for whatever reason, fall down.
Ultimately, the answer is people, not just facilities. Facilities are important. If one builds on all one's playing fields, one cannot be surprised if kids do not play football and get into trouble instead. However, people are more important, whether in funding or facilitating local sports clubs, in becoming qualified coaches or in developing teams and activities by working alongside young people.
In many cases, intelligent nursery teachers and local police can identify at the age of five or six young people who will end up in jail. They may not always be right, but they often are. Surely a commonsense society would put resources into dealing with kids at that age person to person, to try to straighten them out and to help their families to straighten them out. Many parents need a lot of support. We could almost be investing from the cradle to the grave because, as other members have said, it is not just a young-person problem; people of all ages create difficulties. People can usually sort out other people.
We have to develop and to copy good practice. The minister and I attended an excellent event some months ago, which was the final of the twilight football league, which gets young people playing football in the evenings instead of getting into trouble. That is an excellent project and there are many other similar ones. My complaint is that our system does not copy such projects rapidly enough. People say, "Yes, that's a good project," about projects such as that or good projects that are run by other bodies, such as Barnado's and the Prince's Trust. Surely we should ensure, through the Executive, local authorities, the Big Lottery Fund or trusts, that there are more such projects. We are not good at copying good practice, but we should do it more. The ministers are trying hard but, together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, they could notice what is going well and copy it. They could also point out to council X that its strategy on antisocial behaviour shows that it is weak on community activities and facilities and so on, and that it should do something to sort that out. Those are issues that can be attended to.
One other issue that always bugs me is the slowness of justice. Speeding up justice would have a great effect. People—young or old—making a nuisance of themselves and wandering about the streets without trial for months and months undermines the whole system. I suggested to some of my colleagues the idea of on-the-spot courts and fines, and getting sheriffs and magistrates to sit through the night to jail the drunks, but that was considered very illiberal. It may not be the right idea, but we should consider speeding up justice, which would help to create the public confidence of which so many members have spoken. Almost every speech has included some sensible points that we could build on. If we can cut out the party wah-wah and concentrate on the good ideas, we can get a long way.
Today's debate and the speeches from members across the political divide have highlighted the fact that not only is antisocial behaviour a serious problem that blights communities throughout Scotland but, regrettably, it is on the increase. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 was a flagship piece of legislation for the Executive and I have no doubts about the good intentions behind the proposals contained in it. However, the sad truth is that to date the act has been ineffective. Many of the powers in the act are lying dormant because police, housing associations and—as Bruce McFee pointed out—some local authorities are unwilling to use them. Why? In the first instance, the process to obtain ASBOs can be cumbersome and inefficient. In some local authorities, it can take up to nine months from the time the first complaint is made to the police before an ASBO is issued.
Can members imagine how soul destroying it is for householders who have reported serious incidents on a number of occasions over a period of time, involving threatening behaviour from an individual brandishing not just an ordinary kitchen knife but a machete, to be told by the local authority ASB team to keep a diary of the offending behaviour? Then and only then will the wheels be put in motion to apply for an ASBO. That is the situation that the people to whom the minister referred—the elderly, mothers and others on a Bothwell housing estate—face today. No wonder people there and elsewhere in Scotland are losing confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Executive's failure properly to think through its ASBO policy has resulted in breaches of ASBOs—a criminal offence that carries a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction, and up to five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine on indictment—being sidelined in favour of a charge using common-law breach of the peace.
Will Margaret Mitchell take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
I am given to understand that that is on the instruction of the Crown Office to procurators fiscal. I should be interested to hear the minister's comments on that point.
Furthermore, as some local authorities have discovered, there is a potential loophole when a breach of an ASBO comes to court. In one case, someone successfully argued that they did not know that an ASBO had been issued against them, despite a registered letter having been signed for. As a result, the police and the local authority have had to introduce a further procedure to ensure that that does not happen again and apply it retrospectively to all other cases.
In addition to that, dispersal orders have been rendered ineffective because, by being time and place specific, they are too restrictive. For example, if the timeframe that is specified is 24 hours, the subject of the order merely resumes their previous antisocial behaviour in the 25th hour. That, coupled with the fact that ASBOs are expensive because of all the notifications required, means that they are simply not being used. Meanwhile, other measures, such as closure of premises orders, can take years to implement.
The wheels of justice turn notoriously slowly but those are problems that have to be addressed now. All the legislation that the Executive is introducing is useless without proper enforcement. Taking up Donald Gorrie's point about good practice, I think that the Executive has the remedy in its own hands. It need look no further than the Broomhouse experience in Edinburgh, to which Annabel Goldie referred. The police had an almost constant presence, working shifts and changing duty times over a six-month period. That meant that troublemakers knew that the police would not be disappearing for long periods of time, and the results were impressive. Car crime fell by 80 per cent. Complaints against youths dropped by 62 per cent. In all that time there were no arrests. The presence of police on the beat provided an immediate and effective response to the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. What is more, by the police acting as a deterrent rather than responding to an incident after the event, the quality of life in that local community was dramatically altered for the better, and the cost of expensive court cases, prison and probation was saved.
That is why I whole-heartedly support the amendment in Annabel Goldie's name and challenge the minister to tell us why he is not putting more money into providing more police officers, together with more police time, on streets throughout Scotland, when that is evidently the most effective and cost-effective way to address antisocial behaviour.
I would like to start with something quite obvious and something with which I hope we will all agree, which is to congratulate children throughout Scotland on their contribution to society, their engagement in the issues in our society and their articulation of issues. On all those fronts, today's children do much better than children did in my day—we were a repressed and inarticulate minority when I was a child.
Stewart Stevenson is making up for lost time.
That is a kind remark from the minister, who is obviously impressed by my ability to articulate and engage. However, he will have his chance to follow up that remark later.
At the core of the matter is an extremely important point: our kids do us proud, but a few blot the copybook for the overwhelming majority. I know that all members who are present agree with that, so we should keep it at the core of our debate, which has brought to the Parliament a variety of experience from many different communities throughout Scotland. We must hold that variety and the need for a variety of responses close to us as we seek to understand the way forward.
There are no simple answers and there is no single answer. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which the Scottish National Party had reservations about but supported, makes a contribution to equipping communities and organisations to deal with the problems that many of our communities experience. I welcome the fact that, when we were dealing with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, Margaret Curran accepted amendments in my name that mean that, in due course, the Parliament will formally hear of the progress that is being made.
I have a word of caution for the minister. We must not conflate crime with antisocial behaviour in a way that confuses and blurs the message. In her opening remarks, there was a danger of the minister doing that when she discussed drug dealers, who are criminals of the first order, in the same context as antisocial behaviour. Of course, all crime is antisocial—we have defined it to be so by its very nature—but we must be cautious.
After the minister made remarks commending the work of community wardens in my constituency on a previous occasion, I extracted those remarks from the Official Report and delivered them to the community wardens in my constituency. They welcomed the minister's support, which was much deserved, but they are already saying that resources are a problem. We have made a start on a journey, but there is much more to do. As the minister said, strategies must aid prevention and we must promote early intervention. That is an important point.
The debate has been one of the scariest for a long time. I am very worried about the fact that my colleague Kenny MacAskill agreed with the Prime Minister, adopted his language and supported his social attitudes. However, does that not touch on the fact that we share common concerns? Therefore, let us share common solutions.
Annabel Goldie once again articulated the benefits of zero tolerance. I will sound a note of caution on that. In New York, the crimes on which the police focused—which were largely crimes of violence and street crime—certainly disappeared from the areas where zero tolerance was exercised. However, beyond those areas, the levels of crime rose. Not only that, but in the areas in which zero tolerance was, quite reasonably, being imposed, there was a transfer from overt, violent street crime to more subtle forms of crime, partly commercial and retail crime.
Is Stewart Stevenson against a zero-tolerance policy?
I am not against zero tolerance; I am saying only that we should be cautious about the value that it can deliver.
Richard Baker made a slightly unusual speech. I was not aware that there were any personal residences on the Beach Boulevard in Aberdeen, but there was an issue there nonetheless. However, where are the boys, girls, men and women who previously gathered with their cars at the Beach Boulevard? If we were to ask the people in Torry and Nigg, we might get an answer. It is like squeezing the soap in the bath: we have simply sent them 3 miles down the road.
It was scary to discover that Stewart Maxwell once scared people with his motorcycle helmet. I confess to the Parliament that, when I was a nascent Teddy boy, my fluorescent socks used to alarm my parents and others.
Margaret Jamieson made the valid point that ASBOs should be a last resort. There is some danger that, in some parts of the debate, we might be suggesting that they are actually an early intervention and I hope that, in his closing speech, the minister will clarify that that is not the intention. Margaret Jamieson also highlighted the complexity of human behaviour and, indeed, misbehaviour.
I bring back to the Parliament a phrase from another time: tough love. We have to love the antisocial offenders. We must love them to death to move them into the main body of our society and away from a path that leads to criminality and incarceration. We must also help communities to help themselves and empower people who feel disempowered. If the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the funding from the Executive achieve that, they will have been worth while.
I call Hugh Henry to close the debate. Minister, you have just under 10 minutes.
The debate has been interesting. It is also an opportune debate to have at this time. It has been brought to Parliament not because, as Colin Fox suggested, we believe that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004
"has not lived up to its billing",
but because we believe that it is right to acknowledge that new legislation exists, to acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made to date in its use, and to acknowledge that the level of frustration and expectation in many communities is such that we hope that more will be done with this important tool that the Scottish Parliament has provided.
It is right that we focus some attention on the people who are responsible locally. In a sense, we have done our bit—we have passed the legislation and provided the money—and we want to encourage the people who are responsible at local level to implement the legislation and to use it appropriately.
Will the minister join me in supporting the call that the editor of the East Fife Mail made to communities in east Fife to continue to support the police? Will he also encourage the editors of other local newspapers, whose influence on communities is powerful, to do the same?
I was encouraged by the response of local newspaper editors throughout the country when Parliament debated the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and I have been encouraged since then. Local papers have a huge influence in their communities and their response to the campaign to tackle drug dealing at local level has been positive and constructive.
It is right that we reflect on what has been done and, more important, on what is still to be done. We have come a long way since we passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. It is interesting that the debate about the act has heightened awareness of the broader issue of antisocial behaviour orders. I remind Parliament that the orders were not a product of the act; they existed beforehand. However, many people and communities throughout Scotland now see ASBOs in a new light because they are, to some extent, reinforced by other measures that we can take.
Colin Fox said that the act
"has not lived up to its billing"
and the Conservatives criticised us for lack of police numbers and lack of action, so it is right that I put those comments into context. It is only seven months since the power of dispersal came into being. We always acknowledged that it is a power of last resort and that other action must be taken before it is considered, but in the past seven months we have seen it being used appropriately in the Aberdeen area.
Richard Baker mentioned some of the specific problems in Aberdeen. I visited the area with him, and in response to Stewart Stevenson's question I point out that people who live in the vicinity are overwhelmingly in support of what has been done. Many of them said that this is the first time for a long time that they are able to have a decent night's sleep. Stewart Stevenson asked where the people who were causing trouble have gone. To use the words of a song that is, I am sure, familiar to him, the police have sent them
" … homewards
Tae think again."
They have gone back to the communities from where they came into Aberdeen to plague, annoy and frighten local residents. That is a good example of local agencies using the new powers.
Mike Pringle said that he was disappointed by comments about antisocial behaviour that were made by an Edinburgh councillor, and that the police should be congratulated on using the act and that councillors and elected representatives should not make criticisms on operational matters. I agree to some extent and I hope that Mike Pringle will join me in congratulating the police in Aberdeen, and in asking elected representatives who have criticised the police to reflect on their comments.
However, I profoundly disagree with Mike Pringle's comment that the act is different from what he called the "draconian" bill that was introduced. Perhaps I can have a conversation with him afterwards, because I was deeply involved all the way through the bill's process and to my recollection we did not depart from anything in the bill as introduced. We refined and improved it, but there were no significant changes. It is a myth to suggest that there was a major change.
There were some constructive contributions to the debate. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that Kenny MacAskill surprised everyone with his new Labour credentials, although he let them slip when he returned to his old mantra—which has been missing for a while from his justice responsibilities—and asked yet again for more resources. He said that agencies should be properly resourced. I have to say that during the life of the Scottish Parliament local authorities and other agencies have been resourced to an unprecedented level, whether for education, social work or a range of other services. On top of that, as the Minister for Justice said, we have invested more. We have provided £113 million to deal not only with antisocial behaviour orders but with wardens, mediation services and other positive ways of trying to resolve antisocial behaviour. We have put £10 million into community safety and £63 million into youth justice on top of all the other measures that are being taken.
I return to my point about having a degree of perspective about how long the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 has been in force. Not only is it only seven months since the power of dispersal came in, it is also only seven months since the power to close premises came in. There have already been, in Fife, two closure orders, one of which was against a private householder. It is only four months since the noise nuisance measures came in, but there have already been 76 warnings for noise nuisance in Edinburgh. It is only three months since the power to seize vehicles came in, but there have already been, in Fife, three vehicles seized: one car and two motorcycles. I have been notified that other warnings have been issued in that respect in Grampian.
It is only two months since the fixed-penalty notice pilot in Tayside started, but 400 notices have already been issued. In a short space of time, we have seen some agencies positively embracing this important act. The message that we want to send out from today's debate is that some agencies have looked constructively at what the act can bring to communities and we want others to learn lessons from them and to copy their behaviour.
I turn to some specific points. Margaret Jamieson asked a question about housing associations.
Very briefly, please.
Housing associations asked for and were given the power to introduce antisocial behaviour orders, and questions must be asked of them. Why are they failing their areas by ruling out antisocial behaviour orders without proper consideration? That is an important message for the housing association that Margaret Jamieson mentioned, but it is also important for many others.
Paul Martin asked about policing. There is an important issue to be addressed, but although he talks about deployment of the police we need to ask the local authority in the area whether it raised the matter with the chief constable.
Mr Henry, you are well over time. We have questions at 11.40.
I beg your pardon. I was given wrong information.
We need to ask the police at local level what powers they have used and what they have done.
Important steps have been taken and the act is making a welcome contribution. I commend those who have taken action and I encourage those who have still to take action to examine what has been done in other areas of Scotland. The act is beginning to have an effect and I look forward to action being extended elsewhere.