Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I gave notice of this point of order. As you know, the Conservatives were extremely concerned at being confronted on Tuesday morning with a large number of last-minute Executive amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. We accept that from time to time last-minute amendments, and indeed manuscript amendments, are necessary, but in this case the volume and complexity of some of the amendments caused serious difficulties in trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. Although the amendments were lodged timeously and the Minister for Parliamentary Business was extremely helpful in providing copies of documentation, is it in order that the Executive should lodge at the last moment a number of amendments, the volume and complexity of which are such that other parties are put at a decided disadvantage? That seems to be a discourtesy to the Parliament.
I am grateful to Mr Aitken for giving notice of the point of order. He is correct in saying that the amendments were lodged in the name of the Minister for Communities on Monday, which was the last day for doing so. The Executive has a self-imposed target of lodging amendments five days before proceedings on a bill. Clearly, the target was not met in this case, but I point out that it is only a target and that there has been no breach of standing orders.
We move to stage 3 consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP Bill 12A—the marshalled list, which contains all amendments that have been selected for debate, and the groupings.
I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first divisions this morning and this afternoon. Thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. The voting period for all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 1—Antisocial behaviour strategies
Amendment 40, in the name of Donald Gorrie, is in a group on its own.
I have promoted myself. I assure members that the red tie that I am wearing is very similar to one that Charles Kennedy repeatedly wears, so it is a very loyal tie. The colour has no other connotations.
The Liberal Democrats support the bill as part of a package of measures to deal with the grave problem of antisocial behaviour that exists in some parts of the country. Part 1, on antisocial behaviour strategies, sets out many of the other parts of that package and so is important to us. We welcomed the amendments at stage 2 that strengthened part 1.
I remind members that section 1(3) as amended requires local authorities, in publishing their strategy, to set out the extent and types of antisocial behaviour in their area and to
"specify the range and availability in the authority's area of any services—
(i) for persons under the age of 16 years; and
(ii) for persons generally,
which are designed to deal with antisocial behaviour … the consequences of such behaviour or the prevention of such behaviour".
Prevention is an important aspect. Local authorities must also specify their services for helping victims and witnesses and for the provision of mediation, which is also important.
Amendment 40 would add a bit to section 1(3) to include community consultation in areas that begin to be affected by antisocial behaviour. It is important to nip problems in the bud so that the provisions in the bill do not have to be used as much because the problems have already been solved.
Under amendment 40, councils would have to specify arrangements for consulting community bodies, particularly those that involve young people. Collectively, we are not good at consulting and listening to young people, even though they have an important input to make to decisions about the activities and provision in an area that would help to provide legitimate leisure interests for young people so that they do not get into trouble. Amendment 40 relates specifically to local consultation, not necessarily consultation throughout a council area. In areas in which antisocial behaviour is likely to happen, the council would have to take measures to consult people properly.
I urge the minister to make it clear that adequate funding will be provided for all the measures in the strategies so that councils can deliver good services. A lot of money has already been specified and is in the pipeline, but it would help if the minister could reassure us that through the use of either existing money or, if required, additional money, councils will be able to provide good services to tackle antisocial behaviour in many different ways and not only through the bill.
I move amendment 40.
I am not sure that I support Charles Kennedy of the Lib Dems, but I certainly support Donald Gorrie's amendment 40. As he says, local authorities throughout the country have special strategies in place and funding is a key issue for them.
The bill's remit is to address antisocial behaviour. Part 1 will ensure that strategies are put in place to enable councils to do that. It will allow the police and local authorities to get together to make provision for strategies. It is eminently sensible to involve the communities and people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. I have always taken the view that the bill should be more about prevention than about punitive measures. Amendment 40, which would come near the start of the bill, would go a long way towards preventing antisocial behaviour because it would allow us to address issues with local people and communities.
The Scottish National Party supports amendment 40, because it is sensible to engage with local communities and young people to ask exactly how they are affected by antisocial behaviour and what they would like to be included in the strategy. Amendment 40 would be a good way to start. I urge the Executive to accept Donald Gorrie's amendment and to show communities and local people that in dealing with antisocial behaviour we are serious about preventive measures and about engaging with communities.
There is no problem with amendment 40—everyone is in favour of consultation—but it is worth while to say at the beginning of the stage 3 debate that people in my constituency and other constituencies did not wait to be consulted on whether they thought there was a problem. They were determined to stand up for their communities and to say that there was a problem, and they deserved to be listened to. We are having the debate because people in my constituency and elsewhere had had enough. They did not wait for somebody to ask them what would be a good strategy; they said that what was going on was unacceptable and told us that we had a responsibility to address the problem.
I understand Johann Lamont's point, but I am saying—and I think Donald Gorrie is, too—that the consultation would be an addition to the strategies, not a separate measure. It would let people know that we are engaging with them.
I am not against consultation—it has a role—but we should congratulate the people in local communities who demanded that we listen to them. Because we did not listen to people, the problems got worse and worse until we had a crisis, which was a much bigger and more difficult problem. My point is that, in consulting, we must recognise that people have already expressed strong views. We must ask agencies, police and housing authorities now to listen to what people are saying, and to get people involved at an early stage, so that we do not have more difficult problems later on.
I do not have a problem with supporting Donald Gorrie's amendment, because it is important to talk to young people. However, we have to be imaginative about how we consult people. Some consultations manage to get about 14 people in a room, but when communities organise themselves, they manage to get 1,000 people in a hall. We should not simply speak to those people with whom we feel comfortable discussing such issues. If we speak to people, and offer them solutions, we will perhaps have community harmony in dealing with issues, rather than conflict.
The Conservatives do not find amendment 40 in any way objectionable, but we question whether it is necessary. Consultation is always a good thing, but it would seem that there are already plenty of mediums by which consultation can be carried out, through community councils, local authorities and community groups generally. Therefore, well meaning though the amendment is, we question whether it is particularly useful.
Amendment 40 provides further detail in the bill about what local antisocial behaviour strategies—prepared by local authorities and the police, in consultation with other community partners—should contain. I can confirm that the Executive supports the amendment, and I hope that the Parliament will support it too. Local antisocial behaviour strategies are in many ways a significant part of the bill. They are the mechanism by which we will ensure effective engagement of local agencies and local people in the effort to tackle antisocial behaviour at a local level. They will follow on from the pattern established, as Johann Lamont has said, by people taking the issues to politicians and others and ensuring that they are listened to.
The bill already contains a significant amount of detail about what each local strategy should contain. That will be supplemented by the guidance on antisocial behaviour strategies that ministers will issue. A draft of that guidance has already been provided to interested members. However, we agree that it would be useful to make specific provision in section 1 to ensure that strategies contain information about how local agencies will engage with people at the neighbourhood or estate level. As Donald Gorrie has said, it will be essential that the younger people on our estates and in our communities are also consulted as part of that process.
Donald Gorrie raised the question of resources. The Executive has committed more than £60 million to antisocial behaviour strategies, £50 million of which will come through the local authorities. The rest will be to provide innovative pilots with support. My colleague the Minister for Justice has provided £35 million from her budget, specifically to consider services and programmes for young people. That is a commitment from the Executive that is not just about passing legislation but about ensuring that it is adequately funded so that it delivers the results that we want. I hope that that reassures members, and that they will support amendment 40.
The assurance by the minister about the money is very welcome. I hope that the funding will be continuing. We have a bad habit of starting off good projects and, after two or three years, not funding them. Continuing funding will be very welcome. The amendment will not cure all the ills of the world, but it will improve the position of the strategy, and it will help councils to deal better with the whole issue. Some councils already deal with it better than others do. It will give communities a voice, and it will perhaps get older and younger people speaking to each other.
Does Donald Gorrie agree that other groups that should be consulted on the strategy include the National Autistic Society and disability groups that represent people with fears about the issues that we are discussing?
Yes. We will deal with that later on, but it is important for staff in each of those areas to be properly trained. It is important to consult people who have concerns and I hope that they will be involved in local consultations. I hope that the Parliament will support my amendment.
The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to.
Amendment 40 agreed to.
Section 4—Antisocial behaviour orders
Group 2 is on antisocial behaviour orders for children. Amendment 41, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 42, 44, 47 and 48.
The extension of antisocial behaviour orders to 12 to 15-year-olds is one of the headline policies in the bill. From the outset, we have said that ASBOs for under-16s should not replace the children's hearings system as the primary forum for dealing with children who offend, and they will not. The orders are intended to deal with a small number of persistently difficult young people for whom the hearings system has not proved to be effective in changing behaviour. However, it was clear during consideration at stage 2 that members of the Communities Committee were concerned about the prospect of ASBOs becoming the routine way to deal with under-16s who engage in antisocial behaviour. Clearly that is not what we want, and I agreed to consider lodging amendments at stage 3 to help to alleviate the committee's concerns.
Our starting point was that consultation with the principal reporter, and a requirement for the sheriff to have regard to the view of the principal reporter, was the right approach to take to ensure that the child's wider circumstances are taken fully into account while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. That is what was provided by the bill as introduced. Having further investigated the options, and having listened to the committee, we believe that the requirement for a hearing to be convened to give advice to the sheriff before a decision is made on whether to impose an ASBO is a reasonable additional check.
Advice from the hearing would not be required before a court could impose an interim ASBO. That approach ensures that immediate protection can still be provided for the community and that the views of a hearing can be fed into the process before a full ASBO is imposed. Amendment 42 provides for that and amendment 41 is a consequential amendment.
Obviously, we do not want to create an overly complicated system that does little to support children or to protect people and their communities. We have consulted the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration on the amendments, and it assures us that advice hearings for ASBOs could be turned around speedily. Advice hearings already exist for the small number of under-16s who are prosecuted in the criminal courts and they are convened quickly.
We want to ensure that, before granting an interim order, a sheriff takes account of any views that are expressed by the principal reporter, and amendment 44 fulfils that. I know that the provision has the support of the Communities Committee, as it was considered at stage 2, but the amendment was not pressed, as we made a commitment to consider the issue along with the roles of the hearings system and the principal reporter in the ASBO process. I thank members of the committee for the opportunity to consider the options further before stage 3, which was extremely helpful.
In addition to the provisions in the amendments that we propose today, the sheriff will retain the power when granting a full ASBO to refer the young person to a hearing so that wider support measures can be put in place. I hope that that reassures members. It is our firm belief that children's hearings remain the most appropriate forum for dealing with antisocial behaviour by young people when voluntary measures are not effective and that, when ASBOs are used, the process should be properly integrated with the role of the principal reporter and the children's hearings system. The amendments that we propose protect both communities and the interests of the child.
Amendments 47 and 48 are minor technical amendments to put beyond doubt the fact that the provision made in section 9A to prevent the detention of children for breach of an ASBO applies also to the breach of an ASBO that is made on conviction in the criminal court.
I move amendment 41.
I warmly welcome the amendments, which address concerns that were raised by the Justice 2 Committee at stage 1 and by the Communities Committee at stage 2 about the marginal role of the children's hearings system in the procedure for granting an ASBO in respect of a child in the bill as introduced. At stage 1, many witnesses thought that if ASBOs were to be introduced for under-16s, the children's hearings system should be the principal decision maker rather than the decision being handed over to a court. At the very least, there was consensus that the children's hearings system should have a central role in the process. The reasoning is that the children's hearings system, unlike any court, has a responsibility to consider all the circumstances of the child, not just the offending behaviour. The children's hearings system is the most appropriate forum in which to deal with children who are offending and I was glad to hear the minister reaffirm that position today.
I am pleased that the amendments in the group go further than the recommendations that the Justice 2 Committee made at stage 1. The committee recommended that after granting an ASBO, the sheriff should require the principal reporter to refer the child's case to a hearing. The amendments will ensure that the hearings system is involved before decisions are made, which is a welcome step forward.
I welcome the amendments, which address important concerns. They will improve the bill, so we will be happy to support them.
The amendments are welcome and worth while. As the minister knows, we have concerns about the efficacy of the children's hearings system in dealing with 14 and 15-year-olds. That battle was lost, but the minister has taken appropriate action by extending ASBO provisions in respect of such offenders.
It remains to be seen whether ASBOs will be as effective as we all hope that they will be. Some concerns have been raised about that route, but what is proposed today is welcome and we shall support the amendments.
I, too, welcome the amendments. The Communities Committee reflected the concern that several people expressed to it that the bill appeared to downgrade children's panels. I know that that was not the intention, but the bill was interpreted in that way. It is important that ministers have reacted to that and that the Minister for Communities has made it clear that children's panels play a prime part. A children's hearing must be held to consider a normal antisocial behaviour order. When an interim order is involved and speed is of necessity, the reporter will have to be consulted. That is right. Several later amendments along the same lines will reinforce the importance of the children's hearings system in the procedure, so they are also welcome.
As others have said, the amendments that the minister proposes are clearly a response to those who feel that the children's hearings system will be bypassed or downgraded. I share that concern, which has been a recurring theme in the evidence that various committees have presented.
At the outset of the debate, it is right that we establish and are all clear that the children's hearings system works. I am sure that the minister agrees with that. Bill Aitken has said that the system is failing 14 and 15-year-olds, but I beg to differ. The key is that the children's hearings system must be fully resourced so that when a decision is taken, a choice of interventions is available to deal with the problem, which blights communities throughout Scotland, as the minister said.
It is right to make it clear that communities want relief from the problem and are looking for what works. We know what works: a fully resourced children's hearings system. Unfortunately, my concern is that we do not have that when the delay between a youngster committing an offence and appearing before a hearing is nine, 10 or 11 weeks and when many of the disposals that panels request are not available or are not acted on by the necessary social work, education or other agencies.
I ask the minister to reply to those points and to understand that panel members and—more important—people in the communities that antisocial behaviour affects are frustrated that the children's hearings system apparently lets them down through those delays and the inadequacy of the disposals and resources that are available.
What is required is not new laws, but more availability of intervention. If resources are the problem and are not available after we have antisocial behaviour orders, why on earth should the orders work any better than what we have now? The problem is that failure to keep to an antisocial behaviour order does not bring the offender back to where they started. A child is not brought back in front of a panel because a decision, verdict or whatever has not been acted on, because breaching an ASBO is a criminal offence. Instead of coming back to where they started, they start on an escalator—the case goes before a sheriff, there is imprisonment and matters get way out of control.
The Executive has assured us that it envisages a low number of ASBOs being sought and used, and that it is not seeking to criminalise youngsters. Frankly, that is not enough. As the minister knows, the same excluded youngsters will be jettisoned into the courts and into custody. Above all, in the long run, ASBOs will not provide the solution that communities seek: relief from the problem and the nuisance that they suffer. I hope that the whole Parliament believes that they are entitled to such relief, but the issue is more about resources than it is about more laws.
I, too, welcome the amendments in the minister's name. As the minister will be aware, they are very similar to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, and I am glad that the minister has brought them back in this fashion, as she said she would. Those of us who support and have an interest in the children's hearings system must see ASBOs as an additional power, not an attempt to bypass the system. Colin Fox has got it wrong—ASBOs will be part of the children's hearings system and any breaches of those orders will be dealt with within the system, rather than in the adult courts. It is important that we remember that.
As the minister said, we were keen to ensure that the system was not overly complicated. We did not want to have both a children's hearings system dealing with under-16s, as is appropriate, and a court system dealing with the same group. We wanted to ensure that the two systems were closely tied together, which is what amendment 42 does. I was glad to hear the minister say in her introductory remarks that the discussions that have taken place with the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration indicate clearly that it is confident that it will be able to bring cases to a speedy hearing, so that there are not undue delays. The key point about using antisocial behaviour orders for a very small minority of under-16s is that they should be a quick and effective solution. We must not end up with a bureaucratic system that militates against the best interests of children.
I am glad that the Executive has lodged these amendments and am sure that the whole chamber will support them.
I ask members to keep their speeches tight, as we must get through group 3 by 12 minutes past 10.
I remain concerned about ASBOs for children. However, given that most of the chamber supports the approach, I welcome the amendments that have been lodged and will support them. I have already expressed my concerns in committee, so I will not reiterate them. Will the minister clarify that the amendments have been lodged in the recognition that children's ASBOs must be different from adult ASBOs? We cannot simply copy the existing system, because children require different responses. Will the minister indicate what the process and penalty will be if children breach ASBOs? It is important for the chamber to hear that.
This has been an interesting debate. I am happy that the broad consensus is that the Executive has responded to the committee's concerns. It is appropriate that when we hear evidence we recognise the scale of the issues that are flagged up to us. The debate has given me the opportunity to be very clear about the significance of the children's hearings system in dealing with a range of issues that affect young people in Scotland. We want to protect that system.
When the proposals were first made, it was implied that we had a hidden agenda to undermine the children's hearings system. During the bill process, we have clarified that that was never our intention. However, I do not share the complacency that Colin Fox showed in his speech about the serious issues that remain in our communities and that systems and structures have not dealt with properly—either in the interests of those communities or, fundamentally, in the interests of the young people who perpetrate serious acts of disorder. It is not in the interests of those young people to allow such problems to go unchecked.
Undoubtedly, the system can be improved—the Executive is very clear about that. We recognise that in some cases the hearings' recommendations have not been implemented and we are undertaking a full-scale review of the children's hearings system to address that issue.
Members should get away from thinking that resources are always the answer to some of the profound social problems that we face. Undoubtedly, they are the answer at times and I would be the first to argue for resources when I think that that is appropriate, but there is more at play here. We have to be prepared to marshal the organisations that we have at our hands to ensure that they work more effectively, and that is exactly what we seek to do. Scott Barrie addressed some of the concerns in his comments. If there are more detailed issues, I will respond appropriately to members.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendment 42 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.
Group 3 is on periods for which antisocial behaviour orders may apply. Amendment 83, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is grouped with amendments 86, 88 and 90.
The amendments deal with a simple issue. Given that the bill seeks to extend the remit and range of ASBOs, it is right that we look at some of the ways in which they work. It is somewhat surprising to many people that ASBOs can be imposed without limit of time. An ASBO can be a life sentence for some, whereas the whole point of such an order is to address behaviour that is antisocial, to ensure that people conform to the standards that society requires of them and to prevent recurrence of the antisocial behaviour. If an ASBO needs to last for the lifetime of a person, we have to ask whether we have reformed the behaviour of that person. If the person continues to misbehave, there are other remedies.
The imposition of ASBOs carries with it a civil liberties danger. If an ASBO is imposed on someone without limit of time—for the rest of their life—and they respond to it by behaving, they might not realise that the ASBO is hanging over them 10 years later when they apply for a position that requires information about their criminal record to be provided to a prospective employer. That would condemn that person's career prospects and involvement in a range of community activities.
I seek to ensure that, when ASBOs are imposed, a specific timetable is attached. If there is a timetable, the order can be renewed if necessary. I do not say that the timetable needs to be specific; if the court thinks that 30 years is the right time limit, so be it. However, it seems bizarre that ASBOs should be a life sentence. I will also move the other amendments in the group unless the minister can come up with some convincing arguments.
I move amendment 83.
Amendment 83, as proposed by Stewart Stevenson, has some merit. It occurs to us that an open-ended prohibition is simply not acceptable. As the member correctly says, if an individual is subject to a lifelong ASBO, it would be astonishing if other measures had not been taken against that individual to prevent his behaviour from being a nuisance or threat to wider society. It is draconian to apply an order sine die; we do not consider it appropriate to do so and we shall support Mr Stevenson's amendment 83.
I am sure that Stewart Stevenson would expect me to come up with convincing arguments in all cases.
Amendment 83 is intended to ensure that antisocial behaviour orders that are made in the civil court will be granted only for a specified period and will not be granted indefinitely. Amendment 88 would have the same effect in relation to ASBOs that are made on conviction in the criminal court.
We resist the amendments because there might be cases in which it is necessary and proportionate for a court to prohibit certain types of behaviour indefinitely. It is intended that an ASBO should protect the public from further antisocial behaviour; the order will be granted only if it is necessary. In our view, the court should have the discretion to make prohibitions that apply indefinitely where that is necessary.
I invite the minister to give us some examples of where that might be necessary.
I will pursue my speaking notes and hope to persuade the member.
Guidance on applying for ASBOs states that, when making an application, local authorities and registered social landlords should decide what duration of the order to seek, up to and including an indefinite period of time. The guidance reminds authorities that, in considering what duration to seek, the prohibitions should be those that are necessary to protect the relevant persons from further antisocial acts. Any decision by a court should be reasonable and proportionate, so the length of time for which the prohibition order should apply will be one of the main factors that will need to be considered. In doing that, courts will need to bear in mind the period that has been requested by the authority that applied for the order.
We think it appropriate that sheriffs should have the option of making an indefinite order when the facts and circumstances of the case mean that such an order is necessary to protect others from further antisocial behaviour. For example, it would be reasonable for an individual to be prohibited indefinitely from verbally abusing their neighbour.
The concern that has been raised appears to be around the conditions that will be imposed. For example, it has been argued that indefinitely prohibiting an individual from entering a certain street would be disproportionate, especially if the prohibition applied to a young person who might be arrested for breaking the on-going condition long after they had grown out of the behaviour that had caused the problem. However, authorities will be required to have regard to the Executive's guidance on the reviewing of such orders. We have provided the Communities Committee with a copy of the draft guidance, which will be consulted on before the new measures are implemented. The draft guidance provides that authorities should review the order regularly—certainly every six months—to assess what effect it is having. I hope that that reassures members.
The draft guidance also requires the relevant authority to consider at least once per annum whether the order could be varied or revoked and formally to record that decision. That will be particularly important for orders of indefinite duration. Because 12 to 15-year-olds are likely to be involved with the children's hearings system, the guidance requires that the reporter and the young person's supervising officer should be consulted when the authority checks on the case. Therefore, safeguards will be in place. It is also important to remember that an individual can appeal the ASBO or make an application for it to be varied or revoked.
Given the cumulative effect of those checks and given the requirement for courts to impose only those conditions that, having had regard to the full circumstances of the case, they believe to be necessary and proportionate, we believe that sufficient safeguards are provided for the use of the option of imposing conditions indefinitely.
Amendments 86 and 90 would amend what should be specified in the records that authorities keep of the ASBOs that are imposed by civil and criminal courts; they are consequential to amendments 83 and 88, which seek to remove the possibility of prohibitions applying indefinitely. In view of what I have said, I ask members to reject amendment 83 and the other amendments in the group.
Mr Stevenson, you have about three and a half minutes to wind up.
I may not need all that time, Presiding Officer, but I thank you anyway.
The minister gave an example in response to my request and I thank her for that. I will not verbally abuse her for having done so. Of course, no member would in any way, shape or form suggest that someone should not desist from verbally abusing their neighbour for the rest of their life. However, that is not the crux of the question. The question is whether a lifetime ASBO is the appropriate way of delivering that change in the individual's behaviour.
Does the member accept that people deserve protection regardless of whether the behaviour changes? We should be able to prohibit the person on whom the ASBO is imposed from coming near the individual whom they have harassed even if they decide later that that harassment was unfair. I am thinking of women who are victims of domestic abuse. People have a right to be protected from such behaviour even if it seems that the person has changed.
As Johann Lamont knows, on a number of occasions I have argued strongly for the rights of victims. We will return to those rights time and again, because that subject is absolutely crucial to much of today's debate.
However, if an ASBO is imposed on someone to prevent them from verbally abusing their neighbours, the ASBO should no longer be required if the person reforms their behaviour such that they no longer engage in that behaviour over a period of time. By the same token, when an ASBO is applied to protect victims who are being assaulted and intimidated, the person who is subject to the ASBO could conform to the requirements of the order and reform their behaviour.
The minister quite properly pointed out that the person who is subject to the ASBO has the right to appeal the order and to apply for it to be lifted. In reality, of course, those processes require people to engage legal advice, which will simply not be done in many circumstances.
I come back to the long-term issue. The person who has been made subject to a lifelong ASBO and who has conformed to its requirements might simply forget that the ASBO exists. The ASBO might inadvertently have an impact on them decades later at a point when its conditions are no longer proportionate to the reason why it was granted in the first place.
I will press amendment 83.
The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 48, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 83 disagreed to.
Section 6—Appeals: effect on competence of application under section 5
The fourth group of amendments concerns antisocial behaviour orders in general. Amendment 43, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 84, 85, 45, 46, 50, 89 and 76.
Amendment 43 is a minor technical amendment to ensure that a person appealing against the making or variation of an ASBO cannot apply to have it varied or revoked while the appeal is on-going. Amendment 45 is a minor technical amendment to remove unnecessary wording, as section 9(7) was removed at stage 2. Amendments 46 and 76 are also minor technical amendments to reflect changes to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 made by the recent Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendment 50 makes it clear that guidance on ASBOs issued under section 14A does not cover parenting orders made under section 12. Parenting orders made under section 12 will be covered by section 85, which concerns guidance for parenting orders generally.
I turn now to Stewart Stevenson's amendments in this group. Amendments 84 and 89 appear to be intended to ensure that the rights of individuals who are subject to ASBOs are protected. I appreciate the intention behind those amendments, but I consider that they are ultimately unnecessary and could in fact undermine the protection that is being sought by communities.
Amendment 84 seeks to provide that an ASBO is served only if a copy is given to the person subject to the order. The amendment would remove the option of serving a copy on the person who is the subject of an ASBO through sending it to them by registered post or by the recorded delivery service. Amendment 89 would have the same effect for ASBOs made in the criminal court.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already provides the same options as the bill does for serving a copy of the order as made or varied and we have no indication that problems have resulted from that. We do not want to create a system whereby an individual is given a major incentive not to appear in court or to be elusive when attempts are being made to serve copy orders on them. We are satisfied that, in most instances, the orders will be served in person within the court, but it is important that an alternative approach is available where the defendant does not appear or refuses to wait in court for a copy of the order that is made against him or her. On that basis, I hope that Stewart Stevenson will be prepared not to move his amendments.
I move amendment 43.
We have no difficulties with the Executive's amendments, which are perfectly sensible. The amendments in my name have been proposed for consideration by the Law Society of Scotland, because it has some concerns about the bill. The argument that the Law Society deploys is simple: because a breach of order could result in a criminal conviction, the Law Society believes that it is essential that the individual is aware of the extent, terms and duration of any order. The Law Society believes that postal citation will not ensure that such information is necessarily communicated to the relevant person, whereas personal citation does not suffer from that disadvantage. On that basis, I will seek, when the opportunity presents itself, to press amendments 84 and 89.
I will make a brief contribution on the basis that the amendments cover general issues in relation to antisocial behaviour orders—I will not focus on the technicalities.
I seek reassurance from the minister that the process by which ASBOs are secured and monitored will be kept closely under review. She will be aware that the Scottish Retail Consortium was keen to argue that the police should have the right on their own to promote ASBOs. That proposal was not supported at stage 2, but we want the police to be proactive and to work with others in developing ASBOs where they are necessary.
Although I accept that we do not currently want the police to have that power, I seek reassurance that generally the Executive will keep the process under review and consider evidence from other places, such as England, where the police have that power. If, at some stage in the future, it is felt necessary to review the series of mechanisms around ASBOs, I hope that the Executive will be willing to do that.
I am happy to give Johann Lamont reassurance that we will keep the series of mechanisms under review. Of course, we want to ensure that ASBOs are properly processed. I say to Stewart Stevenson that there is a straightforward disagreement over the amendments that he and the Law Society of Scotland are proposing. I think that the postal means is an appropriate way of communicating on such a serious issue and he does not—majorities help at times.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Section 7—Interim antisocial behaviour orders
Amendment 44 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Notification of making etc of orders and interim orders
Amendment 84 moved—[Stewart Stevenson].
The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 84 disagreed to.
Amendment 85 not moved.
Section 9—Breach of orders
Amendments 45 and 46 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.
Section 9A—Breach of orders: prohibition on detention of children
Amendments 47 and 48 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.
Section 12A—Short Scottish secure tenancies
Group 5 concerns antisocial behaviour orders and short Scottish secure tenancies. Amendment 49, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 80 and 81.
Amendments 49, 80 and 81 return to an issue that we debated at stage 2. I hope that members will understand our reasons for seeking to overturn amendments that the Communities Committee agreed to at that stage. It is not something that Mary Mulligan or I do lightly. Members of the committee will know that this is the only issue in the entire bill on which we have sought to challenge the decisions of the committee at stage 2. I repeat how seriously I take the views of committees on legislation, but we seek to overturn the stage 2 amendments because we believe strongly that it is the right thing to do.
Contrary to the intentions of those who supported the amendments lodged by Elaine Smith and Stewart Stevenson at stage 2, those amendments would mean that more families faced the prospect of eviction from their homes because of antisocial behaviour by one of the family members. I recognise the intention behind Elaine Smith's argument, but I genuinely believe that it would offer a perverse incentive that would be contrary to what she is trying to achieve.
The issue is not straightforward. Before I explain in more detail why we have lodged amendments 49, 80 and 81, I will give some of the background. As members of the committee will know, ASBOs for adults were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The next development was that section 35 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which I am sure some of us remember very well, allowed public sector landlords, local authorities or registered social landlords to serve a notice on a tenant to convert their tenancy to a short Scottish secure tenancy when the tenant or a person residing with the tenant was subject to an ASBO. It is important to note that that is a power; it is not a duty. Crucially, if a tenancy is converted to an SSST, obligations on the landlord to support the tenant kick in. Landlords must provide support to enable the tenant to convert back to a full Scottish secure tenancy after 12 months. In addition, the tenant has a right of appeal to the courts if they do not agree with the conversion of their tenancy to an SSST. That is the present position; it is where we were before the introduction of the bill.
Members who were involved will remember that considerable discussion took place on section 35 of the 2001 act. However, I recall that, once people understood why we wanted a link between ASBOs and SSSTs, and understood the support arrangements that would be put in place when that link was made, they offered general support for the idea. I believe that that was correct.
From my experience and from what I have heard from other MSPs, I know that landlords have used the link on a number of occasions and have done so responsibly. They have converted a tenancy to an SSST because an adult in the property was subject to an ASBO. They have put in support and successfully changed the difficult behaviour, after which the tenancy has been converted back to an SST. Without that intervention, recourse to an eviction would have been much more likely.
It is because of such experience that we have sought to allow tenancies to be converted to SSSTs if the ASBO has been made in respect of someone who is under 16 or if the ASBO has been imposed by a criminal court. Let me be as clear about this as I can—that is what Elaine Smith and Stewart Stevenson's stage 2 amendments would prevent. I recognise their motives but believe them to be misguided. Their amendments would not have the impact that they intended.
I strongly defend the need to maintain the option to convert a tenancy to a short SST if ASBOs are made in respect of someone who is under 16. Members should not be under the illusion that preventing the use of SSSTs in cases when an ASBO has been made on a child will protect the interests of that child. On the contrary, without the option of an SSST, landlords who have to deal with the sometimes very difficult behaviour of young people in their properties will move straight for an eviction. That will undoubtedly be their imperative.
Without the link to tenancies in ASBO cases that involve 12 to 15-year-olds, we would be failing to provide a safety net. The short SST provides a buffer and is always backed up by support. When a tenancy is converted to an SSST, obligations on the landlord to support the tenant kick in. We know that that support can work. As I have said, landlords must provide support to enable a tenant to convert back to a full SST after 12 months.
In a similar way, we are moving to reverse the effect of Stewart Stevenson's stage 2 amendment, which would limit the power to convert a tenancy to a short SST to ASBOs made in the civil court under section 4. The Executive's intention is that the power to convert a tenancy to an SSST should also be available when an ASBO is made on conviction in the criminal court. There is no reason why an ASBO that has been made in a criminal court should not have the same consequences as one made in a civil court. As with other ASBOs, we will ensure through guidance that, when an ASBO that is imposed by a criminal court does not relate to behaviour in and around the locality of the tenancy, the conversion of the tenancy does not take place.
I will now deal with a number of the arguments that have been made about the Executive's position on the proposals. A number of members who have been involved in the debate expressed concern about the principle of the link. They argue that we are punishing innocent members of a household because of the actions of another member, but that is not the case.
First, SSSTs are not about punishment. They are about the provision of support to improve the behaviour of difficult households. The two members who have been most involved in the debate have consistently argued for support provisions and have spoken about the impact and effect that those can have.
Secondly, those who make the case that we would be punishing the innocent forget that, in allowing the link in relation to adults who are subject to an ASBO, we are providing that the children of the family may live in a house that is subject to an SSST because of the behaviour of their parents.
Thirdly, landlords already have the power to evict where a person residing or lodging in the house with a tenant or a person visiting the house has engaged in an antisocial manner towards people in the locality of the tenancy. Given that that provision applies to children under 16, it would be ridiculous for the power of eviction to be available in the case of antisocial behaviour that was caused by a young person and not to have the power to convert the tenancy of the house in which they reside to an SSST. That is especially the case given that conversion to an SSST with support can be used by landlords as an alternative to eviction. The stage 2 amendment could have the opposite effect to that which was intended. If the option of the SSST and the related support were not made available, more families would face speedier eviction.
Others have argued against our position on the basis that it is unjust that such a tool is available in relation to public sector tenants when no equivalent exists for people who live in private rented accommodation or in their own homes. Again, I am convinced that those arguments are wrong.
Obviously, we have to accept that people live in different types of housing—that is a fact. Because of that, we need to have different tools to deal with antisocial behaviour in those different types of tenure. For example, parts 7 and 8 of the bill relate exclusively to antisocial behaviour in the private rented sector. I do not think that arguments were put forward against those provisions on the ground that they discriminate against private sector tenants.
Another factor that we need to consider in this context is that private sector tenants or owner-occupiers will not have available to them the support that must accompany the serving of an SSST. Again, we are talking about different tools for different situations. Given that more support is available to those in the social rented sector, our position is a reasonable one to take—indeed, it is appropriate.
Finally, our opponents have argued that support to change behaviour should be available irrespective of tenure and that therefore the support that goes with an SSST is not the strong argument that we have held it up to be. I disagree. A landlord's first priority must be to help to improve the behaviour of their tenants and thereby to protect tenants whose behaviour does not cause problems. The responsibilities of landlords are enshrined in legislation, the principle of which has never been questioned. Although additional support could be provided on its own, the short SST establishes a contract: it makes it clear that there are obligations on the part of the landlord and the tenant. Again, members of the Scottish Parliament have never objected to that principle.
We want to change behaviour for the better. I remain convinced that the option to convert a tenancy to a short SST in the circumstances that an ASBO has been served on a child should be available.
The minister talked about the support that would be available. Obviously, that support would be provided by social services. What structures will need to be put in place in housing associations in respect of short SSTs?
I am afraid that I cannot list off the top of my head the details of those structures. From our work in the registered social landlord sector, we know that short SSTs have been very effective. They work by stopping antisocial behaviour, preventing tenants from going down the road of eviction and allowing them to return to the SST. The detailed interventions have been put in place because they are known to be effective. Although SSSTs can involve a range of support mechanisms, the key factor is that the responsibility is that of the landlord. Because that responsibility was enshrined in section 35 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, it works. I would be happy to give Sylvia Jackson the details of the different models that are used.
Ultimately, the short SST provides an important buffer for tenants and their families. It can help to prevent landlords from moving to evict and it can also change behaviour before eviction is perceived to be the most appropriate option. The SSST protects communities, young people and their families. It must be maintained, which is why I have taken the very unusual step of seeking to overturn an amendment agreed to in committee at stage 2.
I move amendment 49.
A considerable number of members wish to speak on this group of amendments, so I would be grateful if they would keep it tight.
As the minister said, amendment 49 seeks to remove the provisions that were inserted by a successful stage 2 amendment that broke the link between ASBOs for children and the tenancy of their whole family. I remain convinced that such a link is unjust, and that it would add to inequality by having one law for the poorer in society and another for the richer; the bottom line is that children in the social rented sector and their families would be treated in a harsher manner than those in owner-occupied houses for the same antisocial behaviour. There are many measures in the bill that should be supported because they will help to tackle unacceptable behaviour in our communities, but amendment 49 adds nothing to that aim. It is discriminatory.
My amendment was lodged at stage 2 to address concerns that had been raised by Shelter Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Barnardo's Scotland, and it was supported by a majority of the committee. I am not sure what the precedent is for the Executive overturning a successful stage 2 amendment, but the fact that it is seeking to do so is disappointing.
The background is that the Executive seems to be applying ASBOs for children in the same way that it applies ASBOs for adults with regard to tenancy. The minister explained how the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 linked ASBOs for adults to tenancy, which was contrary to the original concept that ASBOs should impact solely on the individual who performed the behaviour. If amendment 49 is agreed to, that system will be extended to children and the powers that are given to sheriffs to serve ASBOs on under-16s could lead to a child's behaviour impacting on the tenancy of their whole family, including other children, which could lead to homelessness. That would mean that there would be more innocent victims of antisocial behaviour—the people who live with the child.
Although I remain concerned about ASBOs for under-16s, welcome changes have been made, which recognise that children's ASBOs are different from adults' ASBOs. The stage 2 amendment ensured that ASBOs for children would be different from ASBOs for adults in the case of SSSTs, and that they would apply equally to all children. It ensured that a child's ASBO would not constitute grounds for converting a tenancy, which meant that the ASBO would impact only on the behaviour of the child in question, not on the whole family. That would not have undermined the Executive's view of ASBOs as effective measures for children. There would still be robust responses, but they would be the same for all children. Currently, support for adults with ASBOs is provided only when a tenancy is being converted. For under-16s, it would be more appropriate to link that support to the ASBO, so that all children would be treated the same, whatever housing type they lived in.
In a letter to the Communities Committee, the Deputy Minister for Communities stated:
"The alternative to maintaining the power for social landlords to convert a tenancy to a SSST is that landlords who have serious concerns about the behaviour of young people living in their properties may move straight for eviction. There is no doubt that the ASBO could be used as evidence to support the application for eviction on grounds of antisocial behaviour."
But it is not that easy to evict. The court has to give the go-ahead based on grounds that are given by the landlord, and it would be expected to take reasonableness and family circumstances into account. However, if the tenancy is converted to an SSST, eviction can take place on application without any grounds being given, so eviction is much easier and can be done on the whim of the landlord. That is ironic, given that the Executive, rightly, has just received an international award for having the most progressive legislation on homelessness in western Europe. This creation of the risk of eviction for families does not sit well with the Executive's progressive agenda, which I fully support.
Shelter believes that support is an alternative to eviction and that, as the costs are much the same, it is better to give support. Why cannot support be given without conversion to an SSST? The minister seemed to say that support could be given, so why not do it? That is a bit of a red herring, because if amendment 49 is agreed to, we will not be able to get away from the fact that the parents and family of a child who lives in social rented housing will be treated differently in law from those who live in owner-occupied housing. That is unfair, and it runs counter to the principles of social justice; antisocial behaviour, as we know, is not confined to the children of the working class who live in rented houses, so responses in law to antisocial behaviour should not discriminate on that basis. Surely the perpetrators of the same antisocial behaviour should be treated in the same way, regardless of their social background.
The stage 2 amendment would have put all children on an equal footing in terms of ASBOs, regardless of housing tenure type. If amendment 49 is agreed to, some children will be treated differently from others, depending on whether they live in social rented or owner-occupied accommodation. That is discriminatory and unjust. The stage 2 amendment, which the Executive now seeks to overturn, ensured parity for all children, irrespective of parental wealth and social background. On those grounds, I cannot support the Executive's amendment 49 and I urge other members not to do so.
I hope that the minister listened carefully to Elaine Smith's remarks, because I found little in them with which I could disagree. Margaret Curran said that this was not a straightforward issue, which I accept absolutely, because it ain't. When we deal with issues that are not straightforward, it is important that we return to the underlying principles and examine the associated complications against them.
A principle to which Elaine Smith referred, which I think is important, is that the effects of criminality on one party should not be borne by non-offending third parties. Members throughout the chamber are likely to support that principle. The argument that the minister deploys is that if a child offends and is subject to an antisocial behaviour order, it is positive for that to impact on the adult tenant. That is a respectable argument in one sense. However, when the principle is examined against the detail, it is relatively difficult to apply, because of the lack of other provisions. The minister differentiated between power and duty in relation to the SSST. It is precisely because we discriminate between categories of tenancy in the existing legislation and do not have similar provisions and duties to support people who choose to own their houses that we end up in this rather complicated morass.
The other important point is that we do not wish to extend the reach of the criminal law in relation to children. In a recent debate on the children's panel system, I made the point that the system needs further improvement; I will make that point again in the future when appropriate. Nonetheless, the system is at the core of the way in which we deal with children. Making it work in relation to ASBOs in a civil context is one thing; making it work in a criminal context is quite another.
Those are some of the arguments that we deployed in committee. We had a good and wide-ranging debate in which members listened to the arguments and were persuaded by them. I accept entirely that it is quite proper for the minister to propose the change to what the committee decided. I do not criticise her for doing so, because the argument was finely balanced. It is perfectly proper that the argument is shared with the wider Parliament and that responsibility for perfection in decision making is not just arrogated to the nine people on the committee. I respect the fact that the minister has understood that things are not clear cut in many other parts of the bill and that she has inserted new powers in relation to secondary legislation because she cannot make up her mind about one or two things, such as holiday homes—we will come to that in due course.
The argument remains in favour of the committee's decision and I will recommend to my colleagues that they vote against the minister's amendments.
We often find at stage 3 that there are strange alliances throughout the chamber. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives will support Elaine Smith against the Scottish Executive.
As Stewart Stevenson said, there were wide-ranging discussions and arguments at stage 2. We still have problems with amendment 49, despite the case that the minister made. It cannot be right that a law-abiding family with one child who engages in antisocial behaviour should have their housing rights challenged on the basis of that child's behaviour. Surely the ethos of the bill is to address and correct the child's behaviour rather than to punish the family by changing the security of their tenancy and threatening them with eviction, thereby disrupting the family, who might be making every effort to correct the child's behaviour.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sure that the member will have a chance to speak later.
Of all the briefings that we were sent for stage 3, I was probably most moved by the one from Barnardo's, which expressed that organisation's disappointment that the minister is seeking to overturn the amendment that was moved successfully by Elaine Smith at stage 2. The briefing also confirms that it needs to be acknowledged that a person under the age of 16 has no possibility of securing tenancy rights of their own. It says:
"This amendment by the Minister could lead to young people being encouraged to move away from their families in order to protect their parents, or carers' tenancies."
I hope that, before they press their voting buttons, every MSP will consider that point.
I fear that members who have spoken in the debate—and even Barnardo's—do not understand the point that we are debating. Members will be aware—if they are not, they should be—that, under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which roused great interest when it was debated in the Parliament, power was given to local authorities and housing associations to convert tenancies to SSSTs. That power can be applied across the board, even if there is a baby in the house. The measure was provided not as a way of penalising those families who have young people in the house or as a way of getting at the young person, but as a way of inserting an extra measure before a local authority or a registered social landlord moved to eviction. It was intended to be a way of putting in place a package of measures to ensure that the behaviour that was causing offence to the neighbours and the community could be tackled.
Members such as Elaine Smith have asked why those measures cannot be put in place before the situation has got to that stage. Local authorities and housing associations try to engage with the tenant to get them to take up the package of measures that, as elected representatives, we know are available. However, some people simply do not want to do that and they must be sent a message that they are being given a final opportunity. They need to be told that they have a year in which to sit down and engage with the local authority or the housing association and accept the help that is available.
I understand the sentiment that lay behind the amendment that Elaine Smith moved at stage 2 and I accept that her arguments about the differences between the owner-occupied sector and the rented sector are compelling. However, we must accept that those differences exist and that we will not be able to change that situation with this bill. I have been trying to ensure that the rights of residents in the private and the public sector are maintained and improved. I am proud of the work that the Scottish Parliament has undertaken on behalf of tenants in the social rented sector.
I believe that Elaine Smith, some other members of the Communities Committee and some of the lobbying groups have got it wrong. If we follow their suggestions, we could end up with a situation in which a family with a 10-year-old child who live in a house in which there is a problem with antisocial behaviour could have their tenancy converted to an SSST, but families with children between the ages of 12 and 15 would not have the opportunity to access a support package that could provide them with a final protection against eviction.
Before members vote on this issue, they should ensure that they understand the full details. Elaine Smith said that, if we support the Executive's amendment, people in the social rented sector will be treated more harshly. Far from that, if we do not support the Executive's amendment, those who have young folk between the ages of 12 and 15 in their families will be denied a vital tool for correcting their behaviour.
In my local authority area, and in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, I understand that several tenancies have been converted to short Scottish secure tenancies since the introduction of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. My information is that, as of last week, none of those SSSTs had resulted in the person being evicted; in fact, they had been converted back to secure tenancies.
During the committee's deliberations, I found this to be a difficult issue and, rather atypically, I abstained. I still find the issue extremely difficult and some of today's speeches, especially Cathie Craigie's, have been very helpful, as have some of the discussions that we have had outside the chamber.
The objectives are to ensure, first, that people are not evicted; secondly, that the families who need support get that support; and thirdly, that the neighbours are protected from unhelpful people. Party colleagues who represent other areas have given me examples of families who use the delinquency of their children as a sort of smokescreen. They say, "Ha ha, you can't evict me," and the children go on and on antagonising the neighbours. In such cases, the neighbours have to be protected, as do the families who have one tearaway whom they are trying to control, which is what Elaine Smith and others are arguing.
I am persuaded that the Executive's proposal will provide better support for the families and, in the end, will lessen the chances of an eviction taking place. In such instances, we have to take someone's word for it. We are speculating on what effect the laws might have, but I find the evidence of past experience that was quoted by Cathie Craigie to be influential. Although I am convinced by some of Elaine Smith's arguments about treating people equally, we have to help people who have serious problems and the Executive's proposal on dealing with this very difficult issue is marginally better. I might be wrong, but on this occasion I will go with the Executive.
We are talking about under-16s and children. We already have the tools to support young people who need support. We have the children's hearings system, as we have just heard from Stewart Stevenson. We also have social services. If those tools are resourced properly, I do not see any need to go down the road of taking punitive and draconian measures against families.
If amendment 49 succeeds in removing section 12A, council and housing association tenants will be discriminated against. As we heard from Elaine Smith, they will be treated differently from everyone else. The ability to convert the tenancy for someone who is living in social housing has built a major inequality into housing law. Those who live in social housing could face eviction as a result of the behaviour of a child, while those who live in the private sector would face no such threat. Making a family homeless on the basis of the behaviour of one member of the household, particularly that of a child, is not a just or effective way of preventing, or responding to, antisocial behaviour. Evicting a whole family, or putting that family under threat of eviction, because of the behaviour of one child will only put the family under more pressure and that is no way in which to protect children.
We should consider the care and protection of our young people and make moves that are not punitive or draconian. We should try to offer support in the best sense of the word, which means supporting the family and the child in the existing system. Shelter Scotland says:
"The link between ASBOs and tenancies can impact not just on those who carry out antisocial behaviour but also on members of their household. This is particularly unjust given that it can lead to homelessness among children who have never carried out antisocial behaviour."
Amendment 49 would represent a backward step. I urge members to oppose it.
Two main issues arise in the debate on amendment 49. First, as the Executive admitted, an ASBO would not be granted in relation to a child as a result of a one-off incident. I assume—I think that anyone with a piece of common sense would assume—that a child in respect of whom an ASBO was made would be known to social services, the police and other authorities. As Rosemary Byrne and others rightly said, that is the point at which the help should kick in.
Secondly, Sylvia Jackson asked the minister what packages would be put in place if the link between ASBOs for children and short Scottish secure tenancies is restored, but the minister has not yet given an answer. I hope that she will do so. Surely any package should be in place before a tenancy is converted. After all, if an ASBO were made, families would live under the threat of an SSST before any help was offered. That is an important point.
Cathie Craigie said that it is all about helping people. Surely there are packages that would help kids without threatening the whole family. If someone commits a crime, we do not lock up their whole family.
Will the member give way?
I will let the member in in a minute.
Cathie Craigie talked about the rented sector and the private sector. Amendment 49 would create a law that would treat people who live in rented housing entirely differently from people who live in private housing. That cannot be right. Cathie Craigie said that we must accept that there is a difference and she gave an example of how the situation would affect different children. In a block of four flats, a 10-year-old who lives in a rented flat would be treated differently from the kid who stayed across the landing in a bought house.
Amendment 49 is ludicrous. The Communities Committee got it right from the start and it is ridiculous that the Executive is trying to change the bill in this way. I wait to hear what the minister says about the packages that would be put in place, but we cannot create a two-tier society in Scotland. Help is available for kids. I urge members not to support amendments 49, 80 and 81, which are all wrong.
I call Johann Lamont. You have a tight three minutes.
I support amendment 49. We simply have to recognise that there are different tenures. We must ensure that there is a balance of rights across different tenures, but do the members who oppose the amendment think that it would be logical to argue that people in the social rented sector should never be evicted, because there is no process for evicting someone who owns their home?
Will the member give way?
I cannot take an intervention, because I have only three minutes.
Equally, if taking action against one person in a family has an impact on the rest of the family, does that mean that we should never take punitive measures against anyone who has a family? That does not seem logical.
We must acknowledge that we need to use the levers that are available. I do not recognise Elaine Smith's characterisation of ordinary working-class people as living in the social rented sector and the rich as living in privately owned homes. The reality is that ordinary people bought their own homes because they felt that they were getting insufficient protection when they were tenants. If we are to sustain the social rented sector, we must ensure that the rights of tenants and their families are protected. If my child was being bullied by the youngster next door, I would have the right to ask someone to act.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only a limited amount of time.
We are not saying that action would be taken against people who have done nothing. Action would be taken only when a serious problem had been identified. For example, when youngsters in a family in Glasgow harassed vulnerable asylum seekers who lived next door, the only option was to move the asylum seekers or to evict the family. Amendment 49 would allow us to address the problem, to create harmony in the community, to work on the issues that are causing difficulties and to give people a chance. Elaine Smith says that if we are putting in place support packages we should just offer them to people anyway. However, the existence of the provision would concentrate minds.
I would understand the anxiety if we were creating a power to evict people immediately. That is not what amendment 49 would do; it would give a breathing space in which people would be asked to consider their behaviour and the behaviour of their youngsters. That is a protection for youngsters who are in the social rented sector, not a threat. People must be honest about the SSST; it is not a punitive measure, but a supportive one, although it is one step beyond voluntary support. Such measures are recognised in every field that we work in. We should not allow amendment 49 to be characterised in a false debate about equality—it is about protecting those in the social rented sector, not attacking them.
I am minded to support Elaine Smith. However, I would be wrong to listen to my gut feeling on the equality issue without listening to the minister's argument. So far, sufficient commitments have not been made to convince me that evictions will be less likely to be granted and more difficult to achieve if amendment 49 is agreed to. The minister must be much clearer. The arguments are similar to those about electronic tagging, which has been described as an alternative to custody. Too many people describe such measures as just another tool in the box. There is a danger that the SSST will become just another tool in the box and an additional option instead of an alternative to eviction. I remind members of the vicious cycle of eviction and re-housing, which makes the problem worse. I ask the minister to be more explicit if she wants to convince.
The debate has been interesting. I am comforted by the fact that the Tories do not support me—I am sure that we will see a few unholy alliances this morning, which I look forward to. I recognise Patrick Harvie's points and Cathie Craigie and Johann Lamont made effective points.
Let me be clear that for the SSST to be used in conjunction with an ASBO, the antisocial behaviour must be linked to the tenancy—it will not be unconnected. If the behaviour is serious enough to justify an ASBO being granted, we must accept that it is our responsibility to ensure that the behaviour is tackled. We cannot just walk away and say, "What a shame for the family, their neighbours and the community. It is a shame that we cannot find an equal system that can deliver." It is incumbent on all members to find solutions to such problems. We must get real about just how serious antisocial behaviour is for some people, such as the asylum seekers Johann Lamont mentioned. Many members have constituents in the social rented sector who feel that their plight is never properly attended to.
Patrick Harvie focused on the crux of the matter. If we do not allow the use of SSSTs, eviction is the only other option that social landlords will have. There is no doubt that many people would be pressed toward eviction because of a lack of support. We can all sit here and say that support should be provided and that the quality of professional intervention should be high enough to make things happen—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Bear with me while I follow the logic of my argument.
Sometimes, however, we have to make things happen. In the previous session of Parliament, when we debated the Housing (Scotland) Bill, that was the logic that we followed. When we deal with serious antisocial behaviour, we must ensure that support measures kick in before eviction takes place. The Tories supported that argument then—this is not the first time that they have been inconsistent. If we do not make landlords assume responsibility for sorting out the issues, their only option will be to move to eviction. A number of landlords might do that. The Executive is saying not that landlords should go straight to eviction, but that they must provide support and that they have another option in tackling antisocial behaviour.
When somebody accuses us of being unfair and treating people unequally, we take that seriously. However, different tenures exist. If members think that we should not recognise that and address the issues, the logic of their position—as Johann Lamont pointed out—is that we should abolish the social landlords' powers of eviction. Landlords have those powers, and we have all voted for measures that allow them to use them. We must recognise that different tenures exist. In the owner-occupied sector—and there are working-class people who own their homes—lenders sometimes move straight for repossession. That is damaging to owner-occupiers; it is unequal, too, and the Executive seeks to address that. Sometimes there are different realities.
The measure that we propose will not allow people to be unduly evicted, nor is it saying that people in the social rented sector are lesser. We are creating a means of ensuring that antisocial behaviour is prevented and dealt with before the stage of eviction is reached.
The power will ensure that support is provided. It will delay evictions, and it will help to solve antisocial behaviour. That is what we are here today to talk about. If any of us lived with antisocial behaviour, as some people in Scotland do, we would be keen to ensure that solutions were maximised. That is what this power will do.
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
abstentions
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 69, Against 51, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Section 14—Records of orders
Amendment 86 not moved.
Section 14A—Guidance in relation to antisocial behaviour orders
Amendment 50 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.
After section 14A
Group 6 is on research in relation to antisocial behaviour orders and the dispersal of groups. Amendment 95, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is grouped with amendments 96 and 164.
We come, in this group and the next, to one of the key points of the legislation, which is dispersal. It is an issue that has sharply divided opinion, but we should start by painting some of the background, where I think that there is no real division. It is acknowledged that there is a very real problem, which the powers of dispersal in the bill seek to address. The Communities Committee travelled the length and breadth of Scotland to hear from communities. Every electoral region in Scotland received a visit from members of the committee. In every visit that we made we heard the problems of groups, which differed quite dramatically from region to region. It would be fair to say, without stigmatising in any way, that Glasgow and the west of Scotland had a different character and experienced a more severe impact of the problems. Even in relatively leafy areas such as Lossiemouth, though, people brought real problems to the committee. If members diverge from the solutions that the minister and the Executive propose in the bill, it is certainly not because there is any difference between us in the recognition of the problem.
I have argued from the outset that the dispersal powers will make no difference. However, I do not feel strongly that if we introduce the powers Armageddon will come upon us, social cohesion will break down, the rule of law will be compromised and the whole structure of the Scottish legal system will fall into disrepute, because that will not be so.
Whether or not the powers are introduced, the challenge for the Executive is to demonstrate to people in Scotland that it has taken steps that solve the problem. My amendments 95, 96 and 164 challenge the Executive to show, once the bill's provisions are implemented, that it is solving the problem. We have adopted this tactic in relation to other bills in order to seek greater review of legislation in operation, and I hope that it will find favour on this occasion. The Executive is confident that its proposals will address the problem and it will therefore have no difficulty in gathering evidence in a study to prove that to us.
However, proving to 129 people in the Parliament that the problem has been solved stands a distant second to proving to people in communities throughout Scotland that the problem has been solved. When the minister talks about dispersal powers in relation to group 6, and indeed group 7, I want to hear her state firmly that legislation is not the only thing that ministers are thinking about. Legislation without resources will leave us not one whit better off.
The minister has spoken to police forces. The police have been vociferous at all levels in their formal responses to the Parliament and its committees and they say that the proposed powers are a waste of time because they already have the powers. Indeed, in some parts of Scotland the police have exercised powers of dispersal within the existing legal framework and it has been possible for agencies and the criminal justice system to collaborate to deliver the results that other parts of Scotland desire so earnestly.
If powers of dispersal are to be introduced, at least let the minister be prepared to test their implementation to see whether they deliver what she claims—that is the objective of my amendments. In the first instance, the amendments refer to research on ASBOs, although I have spent most of my time talking about amendment 96, which refers to dispersal. Amendment 164 is essentially technical—it allows the preparation for research to start when the bill is enacted, before the sections that relate to ASBOs and dispersal powers are brought into force. I am relatively relaxed about the Parliament's attitude to amendment 164, but I will press amendments 95 and 96 with vigour.
I move amendment 95.
We listened with interest to what Mr Stevenson said but, frankly, we think that his amendments are unnecessary. Research might be useful and in some circumstances it might be welcome, but the Executive is able to carry out such research without legislation on the matter. It seems that the matter could comfortably be dealt with by parliamentary committees at the appropriate time. We see no merit in the amendments and we will vote against them.
I call Tommy Sheridan. [Interruption.] In Mr Sheridan's absence, I call Nicola Sturgeon.
Well, there we go—posted missing.
I support Stewart Stevenson's amendments. Aspects of the bill—in particular, parts 2 and 3—have caused considerable controversy, but it is important to reflect on the fact that much of that controversy has centred on differing views about the likely effectiveness of the provisions. That is not an academic debate. Expectation about the difference that the provisions can make is high in communities around Scotland. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that what we pass is effective and that people's expectations are not being raised falsely because what we pass cannot live up to their expectations.
As Stewart Stevenson said, there is no disagreement about the objective behind the provisions in part 3 to give the police dispersal powers, for example. Taking action to deal with large or small groups of people who are making life a misery for decent, law-abiding citizens in communities around Scotland is an honourable objective and is the right objective. My problem with what is proposed is that I remain to be convinced that the provisions will be effective, for reasons that we have heard at every stage of the bill from a range of interested parties, such as the police, voluntary groups and politicians. I am sure that we will consider such arguments in relation to the next group of amendments.
My uncertainty about effectiveness gives me grave reservations about going ahead regardless and passing the provisions. If the Executive carries the day, it will be smart government to build into the legislation not only the possibility of testing whether the provisions are effective, but an obligation to do so and to return to Parliament to account not only to us, but to the people of Scotland. I ask the Executive to think carefully about its response to the amendments. Agreement to the amendments might allow those of us who continue to have reservations about part 3 to reserve judgment and to allow the proof of the pudding to be in the eating.
I apologise for not being present earlier—I was called out of the chamber at an inappropriate moment.
The thrust of the discussion must be about what works. It is not about what we think will work or about who can sound the best and the most sincere about the problems that confront communities throughout Scotland. Those who are at the coalface of dealing with the problems say that the dispersal powers are inappropriate and unnecessary. I hope that the Executive will begin to accept that just because groups of individuals, parties or lobby associations oppose those powers, that does not mean that those groups are less sincerely concerned about the problems that confront communities.
We believe that what is proposed is clearly not the way forward in Scotland. We should not restrict rights or allow young people to be stigmatised, which would allow all young people to be tarred with the same brush when they do not deserve that. For those reasons, I hope that Stewart Stevenson's amendments will be given the maximum support.
I welcome Tommy Sheridan's comments, because the debate has shifted considerably in the past year. I was given responsibility for the bill a year ago, when my primary task was to persuade people that antisocial behaviour existed and was a problem. I am glad that the situation has changed. Mr McLetchie's reaction to the First Minister's legislative programme was that the debate was phoney, but I suggest that he would not say that now—certainly not in Broomhouse, unless he was a brave man.
I turn to Stewart Stevenson's amendments and offer the reassurance that the member is seeking. We have never suggested that the proposals are about just legislation. In fact, we have always emphasised that the opposite is the case. No one measure can deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour. A comprehensive approach is required, as I am sure Stewart Stevenson recognises. Assessment of the effectiveness of the range of measures that we are introducing is critical and essential to what we are trying to do. Bill Aitken had a point when he said that we would conduct such an assessment in any event—we research ASBOs currently. There was a debate in the committee about ASBOs and the fact that they are applied unevenly throughout Scotland and we need to understand why that is the case. I am keen to know why some local authorities perform extraordinarily well in tackling antisocial behaviour through the use of ASBOs, but others do not. There are issues to be considered.
It is critically important that we monitor and evaluate the exercise of the dispersal power. Normally, the Executive's response would be to say that it is doing that in any event and that such provision does not need to be made on the face of the bill. However, given the Parliament's desire to ensure that we analyse appropriately, publish research and engage appropriately with the Parliament—Stewart Stevenson spoke about testing the effectiveness of the power and examining the detail of its use—I am happy to support amendment 95. I hope that that gives the member the reassurance that he was seeking.
We will not support amendment 164, because we argue that some flexibility is needed in the commencement of the provision. That is just proper business management.
I invite Mr Stevenson to wind up with a quick lap of honour.
That is very kind. It does the minister great credit that at stage 3, when she has her army behind her, she has recognised the force of an argument put by members from other parties. I thank her for that. I remind the minister that the real report card will be delivered in 2007. Our opinion will not matter one whit if she has failed outside the chamber.
I take on board entirely what the minister said about amendment 164. When the time comes, I will not move that amendment.
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 104, Against 16, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Section 16—Authorisations
Group 7 is on dispersal of groups. Amendment 51, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1, 2, 52, 53 and 3 to 6.
I have been looking forward to this debate, because the dispersal of groups has been the subject of some consideration and public debate. We now have the proper parliamentary opportunity to reflect and to decide on the matter.
We have never claimed that dispersal powers are the only answer or that they will cure all the problems of disorder on our streets and in our open spaces. We have always made it clear that they are but one part of our approach. However, we will not shy away from doing something to address the real fears and problems that exist among young and old alike in communities throughout Scotland. It is incumbent on the Parliament to ensure that it comes up with solutions, instead of just criticising. Too often, I have heard the fears of local communities trivialised. That is at best irresponsible and at worst downright insulting to those who suffer day and night from antisocial behaviour.
Bill Aitken tried to remove section 16 at stage 2—he failed then and I sincerely hope that he will fail again today. Throughout consideration of the dispersal powers, we have on every occasion sought to emphasise that they would come into effect only in an area where there is clear evidence that antisocial behaviour is an ongoing problem and there is a need to offer those who live in or around that area a period of respite.
I will now tackle the criticism that section 16 will simply create no-go areas. The harsh reality is that we already have many areas that are effectively no-go areas because so many people experience harassment and intimidation and cannot walk their own streets. There are more young people who are frightened to walk down their streets than there are young people who commit antisocial behaviour and it would serve us to ally ourselves with those young people who are afraid. We have to do something to restore calm in their communities and to give those areas back to the people who want to live in peace and quiet and without fear. That applies to communities throughout Scotland—in my constituency, in Bishopbriggs, in rural areas and, I say to Mr McLetchie, it applies to communities in Broomhouse.
There are those who continue to say that people innocently going about their business—whether they are young or old—will be moved on by the police and find themselves subject to criminal sanction based simply on the opinion of a member of the public who does not like the look of them. Such talk is not only irresponsible and belittling of the real problems that many communities face; it is fundamentally wrong.
We have emphasised all along that the dispersal powers must be seen in the wider context of the local strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour. That strategy—in fact, those action plans drawn up by local authorities and the police in partnership with community groups and others—will cover prevention and diversion as well as enforcement and will be backed up by the resources required to turn strategic plans into action. I say clearly to the Parliament and to the communities that might be listening, that if we introduce dispersal powers not only will we be curing antisocial behaviour, but we will help to prevent it. The powers will do much more for communities and young people than anything that the Tories or the Scottish Socialist Party have ever suggested.
I will be clear about what the bill proposes. Section 16 makes it clear that, in any circumstance, a senior police officer can authorise the use of dispersal only if antisocial behaviour has been a persistent problem and is having a significant effect in an area. The bill also sets out that the authorisation will last for a specific period not exceeding three months. The section refers appropriately to times or days in that period, for example, a Friday or Saturday night. Therefore, the powers will not be employed at the drop of a hat, they will not be used without proper consultation and they will be tightly targeted, time limited and based on evidence of significant, persistent and serious antisocial behaviour.
If the use of those powers is based on evidence of persistent and serious antisocial behaviour, would it not be better if the police acted there and then to remove those youngsters, instead of applying for a dispersal order?
Here we see the perverse logic of the ultra-left—Tommy Sheridan would rather have us lock up those young people and criminalise them instead of taking preventive action by saying to them, "Think again and think about the impact that you are having"—
For serious and persistent behaviour, I would.
Tommy Sheridan should learn to listen to arguments instead of always shouting at people. We are obliged in this Parliament to listen to different arguments that are proposed to us.
Section 17 ensures that, before an authorisation can be made, reasonable steps must be taken by the police to inform those people in and around the area of their intention. For example, the police must say how long the period of authorisation will last and indicate any specified times in that period; they must also be clear about the area to be covered by that authorisation.
Once the authorisation is in place, sections 18 and 19 will enable the constable to give the group or any member of it a direction to disperse only if he or she is satisfied that their presence or behaviour is likely to result in members of the public being alarmed or distressed. The powers cannot be used simply to move people on who are doing nothing wrong and presenting no risk to others; they may be used if in the constable's professional judgment there is a real possibility that alarm or distress is likely to be caused and that giving a direction would reduce that possibility. He or she can act in a pre-emptive way rather than waiting—as some members would have it—until an offence is committed. Such a preventive measure is not currently available to the police. An individual's refusal to comply with the constable's direction would become an offence under section 19.
Section 20 provides for the issuing of guidance to which the police must have regard when they implement the powers under part 3. Over recent months, my officials have worked closely with the police associations and others to develop practical guidance on the implementation of the provisions. I am grateful for the police's support in ensuring the operational effectiveness of the dispersal powers. We will draw on that work to prepare draft guidance for consultation during this summer.
I want to make it clear again—I hope that I do not offend Patrick Harvie in saying this—that the provisions in part 3 neither provide sweeping new powers nor do they add anything to existing powers. Rather, they offer an additional tool for dealing with the specific problems that are caused by the behaviour of groups in areas that are blighted by persistent disorder. That said, I have listened to genuine concerns. I believe that amendments 51 to 53 will further deflect any criticism by ensuring that the powers can be exercised only in a measured, proportionate and time-limited way.
Amendment 51 seeks to put beyond doubt in what kind of situations the powers could come into effect. As the bill stands, the dispersal powers can be exercised only if a senior police officer is satisfied that antisocial behaviour has been an on-going problem that is having a significantly adverse effect on the area. Amendment 51 will add "serious" to the tests of "persistent" and "significant". The amendment will thereby further increase the gravity of the antisocial behaviour problems that would need to be present before exercise of the powers could be authorised.
Amendment 53 seeks to provide that the constable must consider whether dispersing the group would have the effect of causing less alarm and distress to members of the public in that area. In addition, amendment 53 seeks to clarify that, whether or not there is any current or likely risk of distress or alarm being caused, past behaviour alone can be a basis for the constable's exercising the power.
Amendment 52 is consequential to amendment 53.
Amendments 51 to 53 will further tighten the conditions under which dispersal directions can be given. As such, I hope that they will provide sufficient reassurance that the powers will not be able to be used as a quick fix for some isolated incident of low-level disorder and will not be deployed indiscriminately against those who are lawfully going about their daily life.
I acknowledge that part 3 has been the subject of some debate and controversy. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the provisions that will now be contained in the bill demonstrate that we have listened to both sides of the debate.
Despite the scorn of those who have argued otherwise, communities have pleaded for the powers in part 3. We owe it to them to give them the respite that the powers will afford. We cannot afford to let them down today. I hope that the Parliament will approve amendments 51 to 53 and reject amendments 1 to 6.
I move amendment 51.
As the minister has obviously anticipated, the effect of amendments 1 to 6 would be to remove part 3 in its entirety. To our mind, the wide-ranging powers in part 3 are, as I have said before, both unnecessary and illiberal. Again, the existing law has been totally disregarded.
When a group of persons congregates in a particular location and causes a nuisance, such nuisance is almost invariably accompanied by noise and/or by threats to local residents. Those are the classic ingredients for a charge of breach of the peace. Quite frankly, the law can deal with those situations.
The problem is that the Minister for Justice and the Executive have manifestly failed to enforce the existing law by issuing the appropriate protection for members of the public. I fully accept that the minister is concerned to provide that protection for the public, but the fact is that our police are under-resourced. Moreover, our prosecution service has traditionally been under-resourced and the Executive has shown a total lack of willingness to grasp that particular thistle firmly.
Basically, the minister's amendment 53 would mean that, if the police considered that exercising the powers of dispersal would be likely to cause more trouble than it was worth, they could decide not to exercise the powers. That being the case, we must ask why it is necessary to give the police those powers anyway, given that they can already charge the offender with a breach of the peace or with one of the various offences under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and other legislation. Why must the Executive always seek to legislate when it already has the existing powers and has simply lacked the courage or determination to use those powers to ease the problems that it has quite properly identified?
Can Bill Aitken tell me what he would say to the residents of Broomhouse who say that the existing law has failed dramatically to address the situation that they are dealing with?
I would point out to the residents of Broomhouse why the existing law is totally adequate to cope with the problems that they have to face day by day. I would also ask them why they are not asking the Executive why it has manifestly failed to support them in the seven years that Labour has been in power. Labour Governments have simply not been able to cope with problems of disorder and have shown, until comparatively recently, a total reluctance to stand up to the minority of people who make life a misery for the vast majority of decent people. Only now, largely as a result of the clamour from its own back benches, has the Executive been prepared to take any action whatsoever. It is to the Executive's eternal shame that that is the position.
If we look at the technicalities of the bill, we see that some of it is, frankly, disgraceful. Is it not objectionable that as few as two persons can be considered a group? The proposals smack of "Nineteen Eighty-four". How can any police officer, or anyone else for that matter, anticipate the conduct of any individual or group? If there is a pattern of behaviour in a certain area or if certain individuals, particularly young people, look terrifying or as if they might frighten the horses, that does not necessarily mean that the conduct of those people is likely to be of a type that results in police action. I would have thought that a cogent reason for assuming that they are going to cause trouble is what they actually do, not what they might do. The law must, of course, be brought heavily to bear on those who are prepared to make life a misery for other people, but that must be in response to what they have actually done, not what it is anticipated that they might do.
The police themselves are extremely unhappy about much of the bill. They feel that they do not require the powers and, as I have illustrated, they are quite correct, because the powers already exist. Not only will the legislation not work, but it will succeed in alienating part of our community, namely young people. Scots law has always and rightly proceeded on a presumption of innocence. What the minister is asking us to do is to proceed on an assumption of guilt. There is a restriction of movement and of assembly that is more reminiscent of the South African pass laws than of the type of legislation that a democratic Parliament should be passing.
It would be regrettable if the minister's fairly cack-handed attempt to buy off the Liberal Democrats by the use of amendment 51 succeeded. I would have thought that even the Liberal Democrats would have demanded a somewhat higher price. The bill's repressive nature is unprecedented in Scotland and it should be resisted by the Parliament as a whole.
A considerable number of members want to speak in the limited time that remains, so I ask members to speak briefly and to the point.
As with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines the principle of freedom of peaceful assembly, in section I of the 1947 Liberal Manifesto of Oxford, liberals from 19 countries affirmed the
"Freedom to associate or not to associate".
The manifesto, a founding document of liberal principles for half a century now, states:
"Service is the necessary complement of freedom and every right involves a corresponding duty."
We recognise, I hope, in this Parliament that we enjoy our freedoms because we limit those freedoms to protect others, by choice. While we voluntarily limit our own freedoms because of respect for and duty to fellow citizens, we acknowledge that, at times, those freedoms will be abused by some in society. Statutory responsibilities are then required and that is the responsibility of this Parliament.
In section 16 we are restricting people's freedoms because, by causing alarm or distress to the public, they themselves are infringing the rights of others. As liberals we must ensure that limits and thresholds are set for when dispersal powers are used and that we set them by using this Parliament's powers.
I pay tribute to Donald Gorrie and Margaret Curran for working together to ensure that the thresholds that are set by the Parliament are real. In order for an area to be designated, there has to be evidence of a "significant", "persistent" and—under amendment 51—"serious" problem of antisocial behaviour there. Police constables will then be able to police the area using their own professional judgment—whether that means working with the father of a boy who is traumatised by repeated bullying in one part of a town or working in a small village where people are constantly harassed by a small group of families. I have worked with constituents on both those issues and the police want more powers on both.
Consideration of the bill began with the antisocial behaviour strategies—there is a legal duty to put together solutions to problems. Section III of the Liberal Manifesto of Oxford stated:
"If free institutions are to work effectively, every citizen must have a sense of moral responsibility towards his fellow"
citizen
"and take an active part in the affairs of the community."
That is why I support the bill. The local strategies will promote what is needed for the co-ordination of local agencies and the action plans will put pressure on the agencies to deliver action. Amendment 51 lifts the threshold to provide a more liberal tone throughout the entire bill. I support the amendment.
I begin by assuring the minister that I fully understand the strength of feeling in communities throughout the country about the need to address and solve the problems that are associated with groups of young people carrying out offending behaviour in their areas.
Like the minister and the First Minister, I have been to Broomhouse this week. I spent Monday there meeting the save our scheme campaigners, who are grappling with what the minister calls the real issues. The people of Broomhouse, like those of many other schemes in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland, are grappling with two decades of being told that there is no chance of getting a community centre, a youth programme or facilities. I am sure that they were honoured to have a visit by the First Minister, who probably confirmed the same message.
I welcome the minister's statement that a comprehensive range of measures is needed to solve the problem. I also welcome the remarks attributed to the First Minister when he was in Broomhouse, which were to the effect that antisocial behaviour orders on their own will not solve the problem. It is recognised across the board that a wide range of measures is required. Perhaps the Executive is showing signs of having been listening to others in the debate over the past year. I welcome that.
I dissented on the issue in the Justice 2 Committee because I felt that virtually all the evidence that was put before the committee—I appreciate that that evidence was different from that received by the Communities Committee—stated that the powers of dispersal were not needed and were not helpful in addressing the issue. As the minister knows, the proposal was widely criticised on numerous grounds at committee. Among the criticisms was the anxiety that it sends a message that we do not want to send to young people. We do not want to send a message to the vast majority of young people in Scotland—who, as the minister and the Parliament know well, are a credit to the country and to the communities that they live in—that there is a danger that they will be caught up in the dragnet when they are doing nothing wrong and will be dispersed from an area. That is a very dangerous signal to send. The police and young people's groups made the point that the measure could set back a long way relations between the police and the young people with whom they work.
I recognise the point that Colin Fox is making. I assure him that when we drew up the power and when we reflected on any amendment that we would bring at stage 3, we did not want to send any signals to the vast majority of law-abiding young people who, as he says, make a very important contribution. I ask him to acknowledge that the very people who suffer from disorder on the streets are young people because they cannot use community centres. I visit schools in my constituency and I guarantee that the first thing that I am asked—
Minister, please speak more closely to your microphone.
I am sorry—my voice usually carries.
Young people ask us to do something to reclaim their streets for them. I ask Colin Fox whether he knows of any comment that I have ever made that stigmatises all young people.
I welcome the minister's recognition that it is young people themselves who suffer more than any other group in our community. That leads me on to another point of which the minister is aware. People talk about the young people in the children's hearings system as offenders, but the overwhelming majority of young people in the system initially went there because of welfare considerations, not because they were offenders.
In my last minute, I want to take up the point that the minister touched on—the right of young people to assemble. That is a human right and it is part of young people's civil rights. I am sure that the Parliament will want to ensure that powers of dispersal do not alienate young people or take away their right to assemble. We must also ensure that we do not simply disperse problems elsewhere. In Broomhouse, in Inch, where I live, and in all the communities that the Communities Committee has discussed, people would prefer us to give young people something to do that is better than hanging about on street corners. If the Executive did that, it would get the whole country's support.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this aspect of the bill. Some of the opposition to it has been overblown, overstated and unhelpful. It is reasonable to talk about giving young people something better to do, but some things are going on in our communities that are simply unacceptable. We should not try to make excuses for that behaviour, no matter how bored people are.
I agree with Tommy Sheridan that we need to consider what works, but we should not squeeze our views on what is happening in our communities into a preset view of the world. When I first became an MSP, I was stunned to discover that the police found it difficult to police this kind of problem. We have to confront that issue and consider how to make progress.
The problem is that groups gather and cause serious and persistent problems in communities. We are not talking about young people who gather and do nothing wrong and we are not talking about a problem that is exaggerated by intolerant older people. We are not being anti-young. Indeed, the people who have come to me on this issue are mums, dads, grans and granddads, all of whom are committed to giving children a better chance. People talk about stigmatising young people, but we ought not to stigmatise people in our communities who have the courage to raise their voices and say that there is a problem.
People are intimidated, silenced and in fear. I accept that such things do not happen throughout the country, but in some places in Scotland we have, in effect, outdoor youth clubs. It is part of the youth culture for people to gather there. They gather in places that are near youth facilities and they do so after they have used those facilities. The reality is that current powers are insufficient and cannot deal with the kind of group disorder that is occasionally generated.
Tommy Sheridan says that the police should simply clear those young people away. I have asked the police why they do not do that and they say, "But we can't stop them coming back." We therefore end up in a cycle with the young people going round and round.
The Tories tell us that we already have breach of the peace provisions. However, the groups to my left in the chamber are uncomfortable with the use of such provisions because they do not regard those provisions as being specific enough or as offering enough protection. In addition, the provisions do not deal with the particular issue of group disorder. The police have told me of the problem of not being able to get witnesses. They say that it is difficult for them to identify the individuals responsible. The cumulative group effect leads to particular problems. That is why we are talking about a specific power to deal with group disorder.
The Tories also say that there are not enough police. I will fight hard to get sufficient policing into my community to enforce these measures. However, the police tell me that even when they target an area and send in lots of police, they still cannot deal with problems. The difficulty is not just to do with police numbers but to do with the structures under which the police operate.
We are saying that enough is enough. The measure that is being introduced is preventive: it will warn people to keep away, giving communities some respite; it will prevent poor behaviour from escalating into something more serious; and it will prevent the exploitation of some young women who are drawn into groups. Do not imagine that if groups gather, there are not some predatory people round about them. We have to send out the message that harassment is unacceptable. Even if behaviour is defended under the guise of youth culture, we do not want to live in a Scotland where young men in particular are encouraged to believe that gang culture is in any way acceptable. In some communities, we are seeing a move from one culture to the other.
We have to strive at all times for a balance of rights in our communities. None of us has an absolute right to do whatever we want. I am comfortable with putting the argument to the young people in my constituency that we may have to restrict them a little if we are to protect people elsewhere.
The approach that is being taken is a modest one. The bottom line is that it allows communities a clear point of negotiation with the police and other agencies. Where there is a problem, it allows the community to say to the police and other agencies, "There is a power. Can we now work together to deal with the problem?"
Two issues in the bill have caused real difficulties: the first is the carte blanche approach that the Executive took to the electronic tagging of children; and the other is the power of dispersal.
I am happy to say that the Executive saw sense on the first issue. It returned to what was said on the subject of tagging in the partnership agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. Tagging will be available only on the same criteria as those which are used for secure accommodation. I congratulate the Executive on amending the bill at stage 2 in respect of the electronic tagging of children.
However, I am afraid that in the amendments that it has lodged for today's debate, the Executive has not addressed the real issue that lies behind the power to disperse. It is not the designation of the area that is the problem but the second stage, which is the action that is to be taken against individuals who have done nothing wrong.
When the Justice 2 Committee took evidence on the bill, no one came forward to support the power to disperse. For instance, Douglas Keil of the Scottish Police Federation said:
"Every police officer to whom I have spoken has said that there are more than enough powers".—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 6 January 2004; c 435.]
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is also against the power to disperse, as is the voluntary sector.
Will the member give way?
No. [Interruption.] Members should just listen—it helps if people listen.
Charities that have approached me to oppose dispersal include Barnardo's Scotland and ChildLine, both of which are against the power to disperse. If the power is supported in the Parliament today, it will drive a coach and horses through the evidence-based approach to legislation that the Parliament is supposed to have adopted.
Many people are specifically concerned that our hard-won right to peaceful assembly is under threat. I have heard no valid reason why we should support this draconian measure. Ministers accept the fact that the power to disperse was never part of the partnership agreement—or at least the First Minister does.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
It has been said that, given that the power to disperse will not be used, opposition to it is unnecessary. That argument is indefensible. What self-respecting Parliament would introduce legislation on the basis that it will not be used? I am worried that the power will indeed be used. If it is, it will serve simply to exacerbate the problem. The power to disperse will be counterproductive and will worsen relations with our young people.
Last year, in a debate in the Westminster Parliament, MPs examined a similar power to disperse. Simon Hughes lodged an amendment to remove the power from the UK Government's Anti-social Behaviour Bill. The Conservatives at Westminster supported the power to disperse and voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I am pleased that the Scottish Conservatives have not adopted the stance that was taken by their Westminster colleagues.
I can do no better than to quote what Simon Hughes said when he was trying to have the power to disperse removed from the Westminster bill. He said:
"I will not sign up to legislation that allows the perception of one person, the views of one person or the reaction of a group of people to determine who shall be on our streets, in our parks or at our bus shelters. The reality is that the provision will most often be used … by groups of adults who do not like young people hanging around outside somewhere near them. Sometimes they may go further than that. They may use it because of prejudice, because of the hairstyles of a group of people, or because of what they do, or because of their colour … it would be unacceptable, in a country that prides itself on civil liberties … to legislate to prevent people from being present in our public places if their presence alone causes distress to someone else."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 June 2003; Vol 407, c 931.]
Bill Aitken said that the provisions smack of "Nineteen Eighty-Four". I reassure him that none of us wants to return to the time when the most illiberal Prime Minister of modern times was in office.
Part 3 contains the most controversial elements of the bill. I made it clear earlier that the SNP does not take issue with the objective of the provisions. It is absolutely right that more should be done to prevent groups of people—whether large groups or small—from making life a misery for law-abiding people who live peacefully in their communities, but we have doubts about the likely effectiveness of the proposals in part 3. We have a duty to raise those concerns and bring them to the attention of Parliament to have them fully aired.
There is a concern, not just in the Parliament but elsewhere in Scotland, that the provisions promise much more than they can deliver. My concerns throughout the process have been two-fold. First, although I do not agree with everything that Mike Rumbles said, like him I am concerned that the provisions will be counterproductive. In effect, the bill will give the police an additional power to disperse groups of people. The police already have the power to move on people who are committing an offence, but if the proposals are passed, the police will be able to move people on simply because they are gathering in a designated area. The concern is that a power that allows the police to disperse people who are committing no offence will undermine valuable and essential relationships between the police and young people.
My second concern, which I touched on in the debate on the previous group of amendments, is that the powers may be ineffective. We all want the police to deal more effectively with groups of people who make other people's lives a misery, but the police themselves—to whom we should listen—have said that they need not extra powers but the resources that will allow them to use their existing powers more effectively. That means more police officers on our streets, not more powers that they will be unable to use because they do not have enough police officers to use them. That is what the police are saying.
The SNP remains to be persuaded that part 3 will have the desired effect, but we are not the only ones. The weight of evidence to the Justice 2 Committee at stage 1 was sceptical. The important point—which every single one of us has a duty to reflect on—is that who is right and who is wrong in the debate will not be decided by politicians talking to one another in the chamber today; it will be determined in the months and years to come in the communities that the bill is designed to help.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, which is why amendments 95 and 96, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, are so important. In accepting them, the Executive has at long last recognised the legitimate concerns of many people. Those amendments will place a duty on the Executive to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposals, which is extremely important.
I said earlier that if those amendments are passed we will reserve judgment and I stand by that. If the Executive really believes that the bill's provisions will make a difference and will not be counterproductive, and if communities want them to be given a chance—and I accept that there is some evidence that that is the case—it would be wrong to deny the Executive the opportunity to put the provisions to the test. Johann Lamont is right that we should never allow preset views to stand in the way of gathering the evidence that will test the arguments, which is why we have said what we have said today. However, I make it clear that if the Executive is wrong, it will be held to account.
I will call Patrick Harvie and Cathie Craigie, but I am afraid that I can give them only two minutes each.
The other day, I asked a representative of Strathclyde police what his thoughts were as the bill came up for stage 3. He said, "We are still against the power of dispersal and we still want it taken out of the bill, but if it is passed, it won't really matter, because we are not going to use it. Why would we jump through additional bureaucratic hoops to set up a dispersal area, when powers already exist to move on people who are causing a problem, and they are the only people we would want to move on?"
Will the member give way?
Let me develop my argument. I have only two minutes.
Unlike Mike Rumbles, I am not convinced that the powers will be used indiscriminately to move on every group of people who are not causing a problem, but the powers risk giving a false promise to every community—whether it has a serious problem or not—that its local difficulties will be solved. They will not be solved, because neither the Executive nor the Communities Committee in its evidence taking has got to grips successfully with what the barriers are to the use of existing powers to solve problems. The dispersal power is characteristic of the whole bill; it fails to get to grips with causes, motives and reasons and deals only with symptoms.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I really do not have time; I was given only two minutes.
Stewart Stevenson referred to 2007. I do not know whether what he said was meant just as a party-political jibe, but it has more meaning than that. The Executive has heavily oversold the entire bill and the dispersal power in particular as a solution to genuine problems. People have been sold a solution to their problems, but if they find that those problems remain, they will not easily forgive the Executive.
I will not be able to say all that I want to say on part 3 in the short time available. I support much of what my colleague Johann Lamont said earlier in the debate.
Elected representatives have a duty to deal with the facts, but a number of members who have spoken in this part of the debate have certainly not done so. Some members, such as Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Rumbles and Bill Aitken, have suggested that people will be moved on simply for gathering, which is just not true. I do not know how much clearer the minister could have made that in her opening remarks. I hope that she will say again when she sums up that it is simply not the case that people who are gathering lawfully will be asked to move on.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry, but I do not have time. No doubt the member will get time later on.
Mike Rumbles mentioned all the people and all the professional organisations that said in evidence that they were against giving the police the power to disperse. However, he failed to highlight all the communities that have said in evidence to the Communities Committee and the Executive that they want the police to have the power. Mike Rumbles failed to point out that the people whom we meet in our constituencies daily who work in those professional organisations tell us that they do not have enough power and that they support the police having the dispersal power. He did not tell us about the representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers who gave evidence on behalf of people working in shops and who also said that they support the power. I ask members to support the measures in the bill, which are only a small part of dealing with the bigger picture.
I apologise to members who were not called. We are working to a timetable. I have left four minutes for the minister to wind up.
I am surprised at the tenor of some of the debate. Bill Aitken got a wee bit over-exercised; that is usually my department, so I was a bit annoyed with him. His comparisons to pass laws were staggering. I will not embarrass him with the details of where his party stood on South Africa and where my party stood on South Africa.
If the laws that we are seeking to introduce are so draconian, I wonder why the Tories supported similar laws at Westminster. Bill Aitken has some explaining to do.
Will the minister give way?
No. Bill Aitken had his time.
Michael Howard was not heard to excuse antisocial behaviour as a rite of passage, so Mr McLetchie might be in bother with the higher ranks of the Tories, given what he has said. The Tory members have to explain why their party thinks that it is okay to give the powers to communities in England and Wales, but not to communities in Scotland; 2007 is a date that lingers for the Tories too.
Mike Rumbles talked about evidence. He should remember that USDAW gave evidence that it strongly supported the power of dispersal. As Colin Fox said, of course we have to listen to the evidence that is presented to committees, but we reserve the right to disagree with it. As we try to modernise and change Scotland, somewhere along the line we will have to disagree with professionals. We have to represent communities and get professionals to respond to changing circumstances. The fundamental question for today is whose side we are on. The power of dispersal is proportionate and means that we will take action in communities that have to date been abandoned.
This is not just about the dispersal power; it is about the actions that are consequent on that power. Why have certain agencies left those communities with no place to go to complain except their MSPs? Why have the police not answered the calls to deal with the plight of those communities? On that point, I say to Patrick Harvie that I have never met a police officer who would not obey the will of an elected Parliament. If we pass this dispersal power today, I have a categorical assurance that the police will implement it.
I ask the Parliament to say fundamentally whose side it is on. Members should be on the side of the victims of antisocial behaviour and should line up to ensure that we have the courage of our convictions and start solving the problems arising from antisocial behaviour in Scotland instead of displaying the complacency and defeatism that has marked the arguments of the Opposition in this debate.
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 97, Against 24, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 34, Against 63, Abstentions 20.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.