Dennistoun Dispersal Order
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5368, in the name of Paul Martin, on the Dennistoun dispersal order. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the success of the dispersal order in the Dennistoun area of Glasgow; notes that the dispersal order has been widely welcomed by residents who live in the Dennistoun area; recognises the importance of ensuring that the legal remedies provided by the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 are enforced; congratulates Strathclyde Police E Division on its commitment to ensuring that the dispersal order introduced on 13 October 2006 is a success, and believes that steps should be taken to ensure that a comprehensive exit plan is in place after the dispersal notice expires, that there is a local plan to ensure that local youth diversionary activities are in place and that an independent evaluation is carried out.
I thank all the members who have supported the members' business motion in my name and those who have stayed, after an extended day's business, to listen to the debate this evening.
During my 13 years as an elected representative, I have never known a community to embrace a legal remedy in the way in which the Dennistoun area of my constituency has supported the dispersal order that has been in place for more than three months now.
In the words of the local community, the dispersal order has been an outstanding success. On 11 January, the Evening Times quoted a number of the residents of the area. Marisa Fairweather, of Alexandra Parade, said:
"We need the zone to be extended. The high police presence has had such a positive impact upon residents' quality of life. I'm no longer frightened to go to the shop at night. When I was growing up around here in the 1960s and 1970s there were police on the streets."
Sally Barnett, a clerical assistant at Alexandra Parade primary school, said:
"The community does seem like a safer place since the start of the dispersal zone. I've noticed that the bus shelter outside the school has not been smashed up for a while and neither has the one outside Ladbrokes. They used to be attacked quite regularly."
There are a number of such quotes from local people who support the remedy that has been made available.
I put on record my appreciation of the work of Strathclyde police's E division, Chief Superintendent Scott, Superintendent Marsh and Sergeant Dougie Stevenson, as well as the work of the front-line police officers who have been involved in the enforcement of the dispersal order.
Many members will have heard me criticise the Strathclyde police force when it has not lived up to the standards that have been expected of it. I believe that I was right to do so. However, it is important to commend it when it has ensured, in a constructive and creative way, that the legal remedies that are available to it are being enforced.
The purpose of securing the debate is not only to raise awareness of the success of the dispersal order, but—given that the dispersal order expired on 13 January—to look towards the future.
We have to consider the possibility of extending the dispersal order in some form. The local community representatives have raised concerns that the dispersal order has expired and that the local community will again become the environment that it was before. There used to be large groups of all ages—this is not just about young people—blocking pavements, preventing local residents from going about their lawful business, urinating on the pavements, gang fighting and causing traders and local people difficulties. In order to ensure that we do not go back to those dark days in Dennistoun, I am asking the minister to consider supporting us in our attempt to have the dispersal order extended in some form, even if that is not the form in which it has existed in the past three months. Doing so would promote the principle that we regard it as unacceptable for large groups to congregate and continue to cause problems of antisocial behaviour in our local communities.
My proposal is, of course, resource intensive. However, I ask the minister to consider the suggestion that front loading this investment in local services will have a positive impact in the long run. If we prevent the kind of antisocial behaviour that we have not seen for three months, including graffiti and a number of other types of vandalism, we might make a cost saving in the long run. I ask the Executive to consider what work can be carried out to analyse the experience in Dennistoun in order to clarify whether there have been beneficial cost savings in the long run, which, anecdotally, seems to be the case.
If there is one failure in relation to the dispersal order, it would be the fact that we have not been creative enough in communicating with young people. Activities are available to young people in the Dennistoun area and many other parts of my constituency but, given that we live in an age of the internet, iPods and mobile phones, we are not creative enough in getting across the message about those activities.
We have to get that right. We communicate with young people in the same way that we did 30 years ago. We need to be more creative and provide more effective information to young people. We should use our schools more effectively to provide the information. I have made the point on a number of occasions that schools should play a more integral role in providing information.
Today, I call on the minister to consider introducing a youth charter that gives young people throughout Scotland a right to information via a website. At present, information is provided on an ad hoc basis. Voluntary groups do an excellent job in providing information, but they do not have the resources to continue doing that. I want information to be provided in a more sophisticated and creative manner that ensures that positive activities are made available to young people and ensures that there is no excuse for them or their parents. There are far too many excuses out there. We need to deal with those excuses and ensure that the information is provided.
As I have said in the chamber a number of times—I make no apology for repeating the point—we should pay tribute to the voluntary organisations, including churches, that play a crucial role in providing services for young people in our local communities. I do not think that we give them half the support that they should get for doing that. They played a crucial role in the dispersal order in Dennistoun by ensuring that young people who were interested were involved in more constructive activities. It is important that the voluntary organisations are commended for that.
We should also recognise the crucial role that local housing organisations have played in the dispersal order and ensure that they are continually supported so that they can continue to bring forward creative solutions. For example, they made proposals to subsidise the cost of overtime for police officers who continue to be involved in the dispersal order. I commend Milnbank Housing Association and Councillor Elaine McDougall for being involved in that.
In the words of the local community, Dennistoun is once again a decent place to live. People can live there without fear. They can walk the streets and go about their law-abiding business. The businesses in Alexandra Parade say that they now operate in a much more positive environment. They want to continue to do that.
Earlier today, during the stage 1 debate on the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill, we talked about accepting humility. I ask every member in the chamber to accept that, when dispersal orders are introduced in the right way and with the proper preparation, they can work. I ask members to put their political differences aside, accept that fact, and continue the good work that has been done in Dennistoun and other parts of Scotland.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate. I know of his long-term commitment to the Dennistoun and Springburn area.
Everyone is aware of the misery that is sometimes caused in communities. The two areas in Glasgow where dispersal orders have been used—Knightswood and Dennistoun—are looked upon by most people as good, hard-working areas that have been blighted by antisocial behaviour. It is important to get across the message that we have to break up the gangs that drink, fight and, in some instances, carry knives.
We must remember that, as Paul Martin said, it is not just young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour. It is all age groups. For example, my sister lives in Dennistoun, and I was in Alexandra park a number of weeks ago when I took her young children to the play area. It is a good park, but at the side of the play area there were broken bottles. Four 50 to 60-year-old men were standing there throwing bottles from which they had been drinking. I call that antisocial behaviour, and perhaps dispersal should be considered in that area, too.
From my point of view—it is not political—dispersal orders simply move the problem somewhere else for a short time. They are not a permanent solution. What is needed is proper, council-run facilities with a range of activities. We must ask the young folks and others what they want and provide a range of facilities that are open after school, in the evenings and at weekends.
I have hit my head against a brick wall on numerous occasions when asking why schools with gyms, swimming pools and other excellent facilities do not open for the benefit of the communities that they serve. I hope that the minister will respond to that question. I have received answers from local councils—
First, Chief Superintendent Scott has said that no evidence exists of serious displacement from the Dennistoun area. Secondly, facilities are available at Whitehill secondary school, and all the churches provide facilities. The issue is the way in which information is presented to young people.
I thank Paul Martin for providing that information. However, people come to me from the Knightswood area and say that there are no after-school facilities for their kids, and that their kids go to other areas in Knightswood when dispersal orders are being used. I am pleased that people are not being dispersed to somewhere else from Dennistoun, but perhaps I will speak to the police about the matter because dispersing people to somewhere else is simply a short-term solution rather than a permanent solution. However, I take on board what Paul Martin said.
Why cannot schools open? Perhaps other schools could follow the lead of Whitehill secondary school and open at certain times.
Paul Martin talked about subsidising the police, but even the Scottish Police Federation has said that that is not the way to go. People in Govanhill pay rent to Glasgow Housing Association and extra moneys for two police officers at weekends.
The problem is a national problem rather than a problem for one area. We should not ask people who pay the same taxes that everyone else pays to pay extra money for extra police. The view of people in Govanhill and everybody else I speak to is that we need a properly funded police force and bobbies on the beat. I live in a city centre and I assure members that there is a lot of antisocial behaviour there. I doubt that a dispersal order would work in that city centre. Seeing extra police on the beat works. People do not commit crimes when police walk around on the beat.
As Paul Martin said, locals have welcomed the dispersal order, but locals also always say, as websites and newspaper cuttings do, that police on the beat are needed and that trouble is stopped when police are seen on the beat. Locals mention dispersal orders, but they constantly talk about having more police on the beat, which is the answer. There should be more local police whom people look up to, respect and are not afraid of. That is the way forward. Young people should see the arrival of the police not as a reaction, but as something that is normal. Having a couple of police officers walking around on the beat is the way to tackle antisocial behaviour.
I worry that we talk too much about dispersal orders and dispersing antisocial people from areas and about such orders being imposed throughout Scotland. People will be made to pay twice, which is not right. Extra moneys should be made available, but I ask the minister to provide extra moneys throughout Scotland for extra police on the beat.
I, too, congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate.
There can be no doubt whatever that there are serious problems in the Dennistoun area, which Paul Martin has been extremely active in trying to address. A dispersal order was obtained and I am pleased that the action that has been taken has been successful. However, I question whether the success that has been achieved and which I applaud has resulted directly from the order or from the high-profile police presence that has resulted from the order. There will certainly be evidence that suggests that the high-profile police presence has been the real reason for the improvement in the situation.
Paul Martin referred to what local residents have said. People are uneasy that, once the order ends, the situation, which has improved radically, may deteriorate. The fears that Paul Martin alluded to may be justified.
Sandra White was right. Antisocial behaviour is controlled significantly by a high and visible police presence. I am sure that members will agree that Conservative members have often said that such a presence is often necessary. Police officers on the street give people confidence and reassurance, and deter from taking action those people who are likely to be the source of difficulties.
I would not like to think that the police presence—which, inevitably, will be diminished when the order comes to an end—will completely disappear from the Dennistoun area. If it does, there will be difficulties. It is too early to call precisely what happens with the application of such orders. It may well be that Chief Superintendent Kenny Scott has not had any sign that the problem has simply been moved on. However, it is early days to make a judgment.
Sandra White was right to say that, although it is extremely commendable that housing associations are making a contribution towards additional policing, it is not really a matter for them. We all pay our taxes, whether through income tax or payments to our local authorities, and we are entitled to receive an adequate police service. If that service is not being received to the extent that the housing associations, in effect, are having to subsidise the police force, it is clear that there are issues to be examined.
Reference has been made to young people. This may sound somewhat old-fashioned, but I recall somebody in my childhood saying that the devil will find mischief for idle hands to do. I sometimes question whether there are enough facilities for youngsters at night. Those who have commented on the matter and praised the voluntary sector for providing such facilities have been right to do so. Nevertheless, I wonder whether a more focused approach is necessary on the part of Glasgow City Council and others to ensure that youngsters have the opportunity to engage in sports, generally let off steam, hang around with one another and not cause offence to the wider community.
I am pleased that the Dennistoun project has gone well and I hope that it continues to do so. However, I think that it is early days to make any measured judgment.
Paul Martin ended his speech by appealing to members across the political spectrum to put aside their differences and recognise the difference that has been made in Dennistoun. As I am sure he remembers, I was against the introduction of dispersal orders, and my view on the matter has not changed. Nevertheless, I will try to put across my view in the same constructive tone that he set. In doing so, I recognise that, as Paul Martin said, a whole community has come to feel that such a measure is necessary for them.
My scepticism about dispersal orders comes from the view that people feeling the need for them is an admission of failure. The quote from Sally Barnett that Paul Martin read out from the Evening Times finished by saying that the bus shelters used to be attacked regularly. Vandalism and criminal damage are already illegal; what we are talking about is a failure of public order. It is a public order problem that has become so serious and out of control that a community has come to feel that the situation can be addressed only by curtailing the freedom of everybody, including law-abiding people who are neither behaving badly nor being aggressive or violent, but who are just using public places. The fact that there are worries—which Paul Martin expressed—about what will happen now that the order has ended is testament to that.
Dispersal changes a person's location; it does not change their behaviour. Some would say that a dispersal order sends a clear message, but I feel that the only message that it sends is "Not here" or "Not now". In the case of the Dennistoun order, the message was "Not between these six hours or those 12 hours."
Does Patrick Harvie accept that, as well as the dispersal order, work has been undertaken with various agencies to highlight the individuals who have been the perpetrators and to find ways in which we can support them and their families? For the first time, we have highlighted those individuals because of the detection that has been in place and we have forced them to live up to the expectations of the community.
As with other aspects of the Executive's approach to antisocial behaviour, some positive interventions are being made; however, they are too often attached to measures that I feel are unnecessary. Electronic tags are another example of that. We do not need electronic tagging to give a young person a comprehensive and well worked-up package of support measures and mechanisms.
Likewise, we do not need a dispersal order to address the issue of local facilities and who provides them. Paul Martin mentioned that all the churches in his area provide such facilities, but most young people these days are not particularly religious. Perhaps they would rather that those facilities were provided elsewhere. Perhaps they have territorial issues; that is the case in many parts of Glasgow, as well as, I am sure, many other parts of the country.
Other issues that members have mentioned and which need to be addressed are visible policing and the availability of alcohol—I am sure that all members recognise the importance of that.
During the debate on antisocial behaviour, I received correspondence from people for whom such behaviour is a real, serious and continual problem. I also received correspondence from those who expressed simple intolerance of young people hanging about in the streets, even if they are not behaving badly. Young people have a right to hang about with their friends in the streets. They have always done it, and we should intervene only if their behaviour crosses a line, not just because they are in the wrong place.
I have heard it said that some members support the idea of indefinite dispersal orders. Such orders would be a definite admission of failure and we should resist them.
One of the first dispersal orders—perhaps the first—was made not in a city in the central belt but in the Highland town of Dingwall in Ross-shire. That happened very soon after the legislation was enacted. The local area police commander saw that the order would be a useful tool to deal with a particular situation in the town at the time. That situation did not involve young people hanging about—young people who hang about are not subject to dispersal orders. Such orders are necessary when behaviour crosses the line, as Patrick Harvie said.
One house in a Dingwall housing scheme attracted a rowdy element. The people involved were not young people but people in their 20s and 30s who were drinking and intimidating the rest of the people in the housing scheme when they spilled out from the house into the street, harassing residents going about their lawful business. Because people were afraid and intimidated and there was friction, the situation ended in confrontations and, in one case, a stabbing.
The local area commander therefore decided that he would use the new dispersal order. The local authority was a bit taken aback at his proposal, but the local councillor—I have to declare an interest, because he happens to be my husband—was instrumental in getting the local authority to agree to the use of the order.
The dispersal order was an enormous success and the community has been turned around. Paul Martin asked what happens next when a dispersal order is over and done with. The police and local authority certainly have to keep an eye on things to ensure that bad behaviour does not build up again.
What happened next in Dingwall was that the Dochcarty residents association was set up to work with the community, so that people could talk to one another and ensure that the community was a good place to live, rather than being a place where everyone had to stay inside their houses at night because they were afraid to go out given what was happening in the street. The community won a community award—people came to Edinburgh Castle to receive it—and the money will be spent on enhancing the community.
The community has also received a woodland grant to do up the woods around the housing scheme. At the moment, they are the sort of woods where young people make drinking dens. The grant will make those woods a place for everyone—a social area rather than an antisocial area.
The neighbouring community, which did not receive a dispersal order, saw what happened in the Millbank estate, and that community has come together with support from the council to form its own residents association. The first dispersal order has changed those parts of Dingwall for the better. It has made people think about their communities, what they want from them and how they can work collectively to make them better places. I do not think that a further dispersal order will be needed because I do not think that the community will ever let things get to that pitch again.
I commend Paul Martin for initiating tonight's debate in the Parliament. It is important that people realise how dispersal orders can turn around communities and be such a positive benefit to them.
Like other members, I commend Paul Martin for bringing to the chamber his constituency experience—which was in many ways echoed and supported by Maureen Macmillan's speech—of how a remedy for antisocial behaviour can be a stimulus for more social behaviour in many of our communities. That ambition is shared by all members, whether they are constituency or regional MSPs.
In the stage 3 debate on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, I spoke, as a liberal, in favour of dispersal orders. A right to free assembly is a tenet of liberalism, but that right is tempered by the acknowledgement that it might be abused by some people. It is certainly not liberal to tolerate individuals who make people's lives a misery or who plague a neighbourhood with unacceptable behaviour.
As a Liberal Democrat constituency member, in the space of one week late last year, several constituents who were visibly affected by antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood came to my advice surgery. Doing nothing to offer such constituents respite and support because other people are intolerant of young people is not the right solution. In Penicuik in my constituency, there were examples of unacceptable behaviour towards the end of last year, when more than 100 young people started to congregate around one car park. It was clear that fear and alarm were being caused in the local community. A bus isolation switch was interfered with, leaving people stranded, and local residents' fences were ripped up and set on fire. That would be unacceptable behaviour in any constituency, no matter which political party represented it.
There are reasons why those incidents took place. There is a lack of a broad range of facilities for young people in Midlothian, especially in Penicuik. Since I was elected, I have supported the provision of more facilities. We need not just sports facilities but other amenities to meet the whole range of young people's requirements. Such facilities need to be available both in the evenings and during the day at the weekend. In addition, as we have heard, we need not just faith-based or school-based facilities but genuinely community-based amenities that are relevant to today's young people.
One issue on which I agree strongly with Paul Martin and others is that dispersal orders have provided a remedy but not a cure. After constituents complained to me about a great amount of trouble that took place over one weekend, I asked the local police inspector to contemplate—in fact, I recommended—a dispersal order for Penicuik in my constituency. I make no secret of that fact. I did that because I knew that such an order would bring with it the intensive policing that we have heard about. I also knew that the local authority would be required to provide a clear plan for facilities for young people. That measure, which was included in the antisocial behaviour legislation, takes a liberal approach, because it means that any remedy involving a dispersal order will include a longer-term solution. In that situation, the police chose not to seek a dispersal order, but I would have supported them all the way if they had done so.
I was struck by one issue that the police told me about. After that weekend, the police detained a number of young people—some were very young—and spoke to their parents. One problem is that we do not have a credible and sustainable solution for dealing with those young people who were detained by the police. Members of my party, including me, have proposed that we should have youth panels to help young people in the community address and change the behaviour of other young people in the local community. Our proposal is not for a kiddie court or a soft option but for a recognition that—whether or not a dispersal order has been used—young people are often the ones who are affected by the behaviour of other young people. As Maureen Macmillan said, if we have a longer-term solution with more facilities and better involvement of young people, we will not need a dispersal order in the future.
I commend Paul Martin for bringing the Parliament's attention to an on-going issue. I hope that, during the election, the issue will be dealt with in as mature a way as it has been debated today in the Parliament.
I add my congratulations to Paul Martin, not just on securing the debate and on the thoughtful and measured way in which he raised the issues, but on his long-standing commitment to his constituents, which led in large part to the antisocial behaviour legislation being on the statute book. I know that he shares my great passion for addressing issues such as antisocial behaviour, and I hope that I shall not let him down by following his good cop with a bad cop. I shall seek to recognise the positive tone that has been taken throughout the chamber.
Paul Martin opened by talking about how his community had engaged with the process. Something powerful about the antisocial behaviour legislation and the debate about antisocial behaviour has led communities from feeling disempowered and frightened and from not having control of what was going on in their immediate areas to a position in which we can say that, by coming together as communities, they can do things that can make a difference. The message that they are being listened to is hugely positive for communities.
The debate on antisocial behaviour reflects the fact that our communities took an opportunity. Antisocial behaviour was not something that politicians came into the Parliament to discuss; communities drove the issue on to the political agenda and into the priorities of the police, the court system and community services. That is a great testament to all the people in our communities who had the courage to do that.
I regard dispersal orders not as an admission of failure, as Patrick Harvie suggests, but as a recognition of the significant successes of communities in demanding that the injustices that they faced should be confronted.
Antisocial behaviour and the debate about it and how we tackle it are not simply an event but a process. We will learn more and understand more about how the legislation works, how antisocial behaviour is experienced and what causes it, which will allow us to take further measures as appropriate. Dispersal orders do not involve simply one action by the police; they bring with them a range of issues and services, which I can list. They include all the measures that the significant funding to deal with antisocial behaviour has covered, such as community wardens, investigation teams and mediation, and involve understanding why antisocial behaviour exists at different levels and how it can be addressed.
The Parliament has reflected a change in the debate. I was privileged to be at a conference yesterday with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, at which I talked with people from communities who are working on antisocial behaviour. I was struck not only by the energy of those people, who talked about good practice, but by how the debate has moved on from being about why the measures in the antisocial behaviour legislation cannot work to being about how we make them work and why it is important that they do so. We no longer have a counsel of despair. All sides acknowledge that we need to address a serious issue, and people must be commended for that.
It is important to understand the level of intimidation and problems that have existed—that has been reflected in the debate. I welcome whole-heartedly our police forces' use of the power to stop mindless and irresponsible behaviour by a few. Such behaviour saps communities' confidence and undermines the law-abiding majority's quality of life. In the longer term, it can cause some communities to spiral downwards, so that folk want to get out and public investment in those communities is subsequently lost.
We know that people who have experienced dispersal orders view them as significant. Wherever orders have been used—from Aberdeen to Dumfries and Galloway and from Dingwall to Sauchie—the public response has been overwhelmingly positive. In all those communities, the quality of local residents' lives improved immediately. There are several examples of people reflecting on that.
We must not forget that dispersal orders were not intended to deal with the underlying causes of disorder; they were introduced to give communities rapid respite and a breathing space while longer-term solutions were found. That is why the legislation set out procedures that the police must follow when deciding on the use of dispersal orders. They must consult the local authority and local people, so that together they can work out ways of sustaining the benefits of dispersal orders. That is not always easy, because some underlying problems are deep seated. However, I am heartened by the way in which all the people who are involved are working together to find solutions.
I understand that in Dennistoun, a range of agencies have come together to determine how they can solve the underlying problems, as Paul Martin said. Glasgow Community and Safety Services, Strathclyde police, the local housing association and local people are all working together to provide young people in the area with productive and interesting things to do when they are getting into trouble.
We do not understate the importance of working with young people. Glasgow City Council was given £4 million over four years to engage in diversionary activities with young people and to consult them on what those activities should be. The provision of facilities is important, but facilities also need to be protected. We must acknowledge that some community facilities that young people in particular want to use are denied them by other young people exercising a veto on who can use them. Addressing that is also an important part of tackling antisocial behaviour.
When it passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, the Parliament asked for an evaluation of the new legal measure of dispersal. Although the immediate benefits to communities speak for themselves, we rightly need to reflect on the longer-term impact of dispersal orders. I am happy to assure Paul Martin that we will reflect on the experience in Dennistoun and consider issues such as displacement.
The extension of the dispersal order in Dennistoun is a matter to be decided locally, where people are best placed to determine, in consultation with local partners, whether that would be appropriate. However, the tools to extend the order exist if they decide that they want to do so.
The Executive has put in place a thorough evaluation of dispersal orders and will report to the Parliament in October 2007. I do not want to pre-empt the evaluation but, so far, the signs are positive. Communities feel the benefits and the police find the orders to be a useful additional approach. We are also seeing tangible outcomes. For example, in Sauchie there has been a 60 per cent reduction in antisocial behaviour-related calls to the police and the nature of such calls is much less serious than it was before the dispersal order. In Dennistoun, a menu of approaches is being used as the authorities move to the next stage in dispersal.
I agree completely with Paul Martin's point about talking to young people. A huge amount of work is being done on that by groups such as Young Scot, which is a wonderful organisation with a capacity to engage young people in all sorts of ways. Many local organisations are doing the same thing, and we need to talk to them too.
At the heart of the dispersal provisions is an understanding that we truly respect young people if we challenge behaviour that prevents them from achieving their potential. We should not infantilise our young people and say, as we may have done in the past, that they somehow cannot help it because antisocial behaviour is what happens in their communities. We should take them sufficiently seriously to tell them that we want them to address the problems that they face and that we have a right to challenge them about how they affect the communities in which they live.
I reiterate the messages that the First Minister and the Minister for Justice have already given to police forces: they should use the powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 when appropriate. The people of Scotland expect them to do so and deserve no less.
We welcome the positive messages that are coming from Dennistoun and elsewhere, but we also know that antisocial behaviour remains a challenge and that local communities, strengthened by the dispersal measures, will insist that we continue to address the issues.
Meeting closed at 18:48.