Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3744, in the name of Christine May, on safer communities and neighbourhoods. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the many opportunities to improve community safety provided under the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 and other initiatives, such as Safer Routes to School; congratulates community safety partnerships, such as that in Fife, for the innovative ways in which they have developed local schemes; notes that initiatives, such as Fife's Time2Act Safer Neighbourhoods campaign, cover a wide range of community safety matters such as safety of older people, women's personal safety, reduction in domestic violence, drink driving and drunk pedestrians, safety of children and young people, safer town centres and neighbourhoods and support for victims of crime and anti-social behaviour; acknowledges the work done by public sector staff, uniformed services and many members of local communities to develop and support such schemes; believes that there is further scope for developments in this area, and considers that all concerned should continue to work together to make Scotland's communities safer.
It gives me great pleasure to initiate this debate on the theme of building safer communities and neighbourhoods. I thank all those members who signed my motion and I am pleased to see those who are in the chamber this evening. I hope to hear from all of them about their views on the Fife campaign—if they are from Fife—and about what is being done throughout the country.
Contrary to the impression that we might get from the screaming headlines in some of the more sensationalist media outlets, our communities are, in general, lived in by individuals and families who not only take responsibility for their own behaviour and environment but play an active part in trying to make the environment and behaviour of those around them as good as it can be. Although there are those whose raison d'etre is to make folk's lives a misery, we should remember that they are the minority. I wanted this evening's debate to celebrate the actions of the responsible majority.
As my theme, I have taken the time2act campaign of the Fife community safety partnership and I welcome the members of the partnership who are in the gallery for the debate. I also pay tribute to the Scottish Executive for the funding that it has provided and to the Fife Council community safety chairman, Councillor Andrew Keddie, and the members of his committee, who have played such an important role in enabling what has been achieved.
This year, the partnership has a budget of £2 million plus from the Scottish Executive, Fife Council, NHS Fife and Fife constabulary. The partnership is implementing initiatives that range from the most comprehensive closed-circuit television system in Scotland outside city areas, which received capital funding from the Executive, to flashing signs at speeding black spots at the entrances to built-up areas, which have proved very successful in getting motorists to slow down. Community wardens are making a difference. The festive drink-driving campaign resulted in there being no injuries in Fife as a result of drink-related accidents for the first time in three years. There are strategies to tackle race crime, bad drivers, drunk drivers and pedestrians and, of course, drug dealers and career criminals. In recent weeks, I have seen reports of how the time2act campaign has resulted in the recovery of £4 million in drugs and drug-related assets in Fife. It led to a report in yesterday's Daily Record of Fife's finest skulking behind bushes and looking unobtrusive at discos—I would like to have seen that. The initiative was very successful and targeted action by all concerned has helped to reduce crime in Fife by 13 per cent this year.
Today's edition of The Courier includes a report on the success of the mobile CCTV vehicle that the Executive has funded in Buckhaven, in my constituency and that of Marilyn Livingstone. The vehicle has helped to enable the arrests of a number of individuals and resulted in a statement by local police and Chief Superintendent Jim Rodden, who is in the public gallery, that there was a marked downturn in incidents in the area on the following nights. That demonstrates the success of the initiative. I hope that the minister will say whether he is considering additional investment in flexible facilities of that sort. Will he come to Fife, to see for himself the way in which the unit is helping to cut crime in areas where fixed CCTV is not possible?
This evening, I want to highlight two areas of the campaign. The first is the "plan for your personal safety: a guide for women", which I have with me. I am happy to provide copies of the plan to anyone who wants them. It is a comprehensive guide that offers general tips and advice on how women can be safe and secure when out and about, at work and at home. Launched in November last year, it is being made generally available through clubs, pubs, doctors' surgeries and other outlets. The plan came about because of a women's safety conference that was held in Fife. After that, an awful lot of folk from an awful lot of agencies got together to produce the guide. So far, it has been extremely helpful. I hope that the idea can be taken up across the rest of Scotland.
Women's safety is an important element of the Fife domestic and sexual abuse partnership's action plan, as well as of the Scottish Executive's wider agenda on violence against women. We must make clear that the guide does not raise fears among women but seeks to give them practical advice on how to ensure that they can go to their work, be in their homes, have a good time and be safe. It was sponsored by Carlton Bingo Clubs, which shows the work that has been done to involve the private sector in Fife.
The second area that I want to highlight is the Fife cares initiative, which was developed to address older people's concerns about home safety, fire safety and security. Through partnership and making use of those who regularly visit people who are housebound or vulnerable, the initiative helps to identify areas where people feel vulnerable, so that they can be offered the appropriate advice or, indeed, a solution, which might involve an adaptation to their property to help them feel safer. There are no forms to complete. The initiative does not differentiate between home owners, council tenants and housing association tenants, and there is no financial cost to the client. Between March 2003 and October 2005, 7,500 households across Fife were visited and 5,000 smoke detectors were issued, in addition to those that the fire service has installed. Ten thousand Fife cares packs, including presentations, and 10,000 safelink bottles—bottles with a list of contacts and medication that people put in the fridge—have been issued, as well as security lights and personal alarms. The list is staggering.
Professional advice—the thought that someone cares enough to take on board the issues that make people afraid—is much more important than the fitting of aids and adaptations. The feedback that has been obtained from clients is quite staggering. For example, a woman who was too terrified to sleep in her bedroom—she slept in her clothes, with her mobile phone switched on—was able to sleep upstairs after she was given advice and some safety equipment. Another example is the young woman with children who was enabled to feel safer before her violent partner was due to be released from jail. The costs to the Fife partners of providing such advice are minimal, but the effect on clients is life changing.
Finally, I ask the Parliament to join me in recording our thanks not only to the police force and council staff throughout Scotland who work to ensure that our communities are safe but to the thousands of local residents who act not as nosey neighbours but as good and caring citizens by keeping an eye out for others in our streets, towns and villages. By reporting and patiently observing suspicious or illegal activities, they help to build up the evidence that is required for action to be taken. Without their co-operation, the Parliament's ambitions for Scotland to be safer and more prosperous would not be realised.
I congratulate Christine May on securing the debate. The motion is a timely reminder of the work that is being carried out by police and community safety partnerships not only in Fife but throughout Scotland. A lot of good work is being done.
Most of my remarks will concentrate on Fife. As Christine May highlighted, some of Fife's success stories need to be rolled out not just to the rest of Scotland but to other communities in Fife that have yet to benefit from them. In particular, many communities in Fife ask why they cannot be given CCTV. Its success in other communities has encouraged people to seek for their own community the same level of protection. Perhaps one of our biggest challenges in Fife is to meet the aspirations of all those who want CCTV in their area.
The time2act safer neighbourhoods campaign is trying to improve the quality of life in the kingdom by drawing attention to the on-going community partnership working in which Fife constabulary is involved and by using the period of the campaign to focus attention on causes for concern such as vandalism, antisocial behaviour, drink, drugs, drunk driving, drunk pedestrians and, as Christine May mentioned, women's safety. My only difficulty with the time2act campaign is its length, as it is due to end in January 2006. It would have been better if the campaign had been rolled out for a longer period so that those who need to know what Fife constabulary and community safety partnership are doing could have benefited from the extra time for local press coverage on the various aspects of the campaign.
I, too, congratulate all those who have come together in the community safety partnership. Only through such partnership working, involving the communities, the agencies and the police, will we be able to provide safer communities and neighbourhoods.
However, without wishing to disappoint Christine May too much, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to mention that, despite the money that the Executive has provided, Fife still has fewer police than its population requires. Much can be done through initiatives and partnership schemes but, frankly, there is no substitute for having sufficient police on the beat. That would help our communities to do even better. Christine May is absolutely right that a lot of good work is taking place, but that work is being done despite the fact that we have insufficient policing in our Fife communities. When the minister responds to the debate, I would like to hear how he will ensure that we make Fife an even better and safer place in the future.
I congratulate Christine May on securing the debate. Indeed, it is perhaps appropriate that she has done so, because I understand that during her tenure as leader of Fife Council it passed more ASBOs than any other local authority in Scotland. I am not in a position to judge whether that apparent lack of good neighbourliness in the kingdom reflects the adage that it takes a long spoon to sup with a Fifer or whether it shows commendable zeal on the part of Christine May's former council.
Antisocial behaviour certainly represents a major amount of the complaints that I hear at surgeries and elsewhere. I still remember a young mother who came to one of my surgeries in Leven in Christine May's constituency. I shall call her Annabel, because she was feisty and articulate and had a sense of humour. That was remarkable, given the persecution that she and her family had been subjected to over five years by what is colloquially known as a family from hell. Annabel was a single young mother who was buying her own home through a local housing association. However, her house was in a scheme that was also occupied by council tenants and, despite the fact that antisocial behaviour orders were served, it took five long years to evict the offending family.
I should also point out that although we genuinely welcome the use of CCTV that Christine May referred to, the cameras that were erected outside Annabel's home lasted for precisely one day before they were ripped down. In fact, Annabel had to move away from her home for a year before the family in question was finally evicted.
I relate the story only because the tenor of the street in which Annabel lives has been transformed since the offending family left. I guess that the great pity is that it took five years to achieve such an outcome.
I agree with much of the detail of Christine May's motion, and we should congratulate the Fife campaign, the community safety partnerships and Fife's safer routes to school. However, we also endorse the part of her motion that suggests that there is scope for further improvements. For example, I see a lot of sense in the scheme proposed in Edinburgh to name and shame teenage thugs who have been found guilty of antisocial behaviour, even if they are only 14 or 15 years old. Last year, fewer than 90 youths were responsible for 1,000 crimes in the city. Why should the public not know who is causing those problems? Even if they are under 16, why should such troublemakers be afforded anonymity?
We hear a great deal about the deprivation that leads to people behaving in an antisocial manner. Of course, we all sympathise with such a situation. However, a balance must be struck and we believe that, at the moment, it has swung too far away from the victims.
Some members in the chamber have tried to promulgate the myth that the Conservatives opposed the introduction of ASBOs or that we voted against the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. Neither claim is true. We voted for the legislation at every stage. That said, despite the apparent success of the recent Mid Calder initiative, we remain concerned about dispersal orders. The ultimate success of the Mid Calder campaign will depend on how well it succeeds after the current major police presence is removed—which, of course, it will be.
The other point is that dispersal simply means dispersing the problem elsewhere. We do not need more laws to deal with this matter; instead, existing laws must be enforced. Furthermore, we must have more police on the ground. I understand that the Scottish Police Federation shares our judgment that the need for dispersal orders would disappear if more police were regularly on the local beat. As a result, I fully endorse Tricia Marwick's point that we need more police on the ground in Fife.
That said, I fully commend Christine May's motion and support her views.
I, too, congratulate Christine May on securing the debate, which provides a useful opportunity to express concerns about, and to highlight, issues with regard to safer communities and neighbourhoods in Fife. In her speech, she mentioned some of the valuable projects that have been introduced in Fife to deal with those matters.
As Christine May pointed out, the vast majority of people are good neighbours who behave properly and want to make a positive impact. I do not just mean adults; the vast majority of children also want to make positive contributions to their communities. We often forget that when we discuss antisocial and yob behaviour, and we forget that only a small minority, to whom Ted Brocklebank referred, cause problems. We all want to tackle that small minority, but let us not at the same time demonise all young people.
We must ensure that we involve young people in developing community safety strategies and other programmes. I was interested in the mail-out that we all received today from Barnardo's Scotland about road safety projects such as the reduce speed now campaign. Sadly, that campaign did not take place in Fife, but it did take place in other parts of Scotland. Young people voiced their concern that, because of a lack of safe routes to school they are not walking to school, although they would like to. They also said that, because of the lack of safe places to play, they are not playing outdoors as much as they would like. Involving young people in determining such things and in considering those issues might make a difference at an early stage. We need to ensure that that happens across all our community safety strategies. There is a risk that we are demonising young people and not involving them and that, as a result, antisocial behaviour is not addressed across the piece.
It concerns me that we seem to want to judge councils' success in dealing with antisocial behaviour by how many antisocial behaviour orders they implement. It should be the other way round; we should be judging them by how few ASBOs they issue, because we should be trying to address the problem of antisocial behaviour at its roots. Rather than issue more and more ASBOs, we should try to minimise the need for them. I hope that that is examined in the round and that the minister will comment on the language that is sometimes used in debates on antisocial behaviour and on how young people can be involved in their own communities. We in Fife take a good approach to the issue. Perhaps we still need to involve young people more, but we take a positive approach to creating safer communities and neighbourhoods.
Christine May referred to closed-circuit television in Fife. I and other elected members were at Fife constabulary's headquarters on Monday to examine the command and control centre, including the CCTV unit, where footage from 94 different cameras comes into a massive suite for examination. The one that concerned me most was the one in Crossgate in Cupar, which seems to pan right on to the front of the Central Café, so the police will be able to judge how often I pop in there for chips after dealing with my constituency business—or perhaps that camera is there so that the police will know when the queue has gone down far enough and can get there quickly to buy chips. CCTV is an important part of dealing with antisocial behaviour and nipping it in the bud when problems arise, but we must be careful to ensure that people do not feel that they are being spied on or that the technology is being used in unreasonable ways.
Let us welcome and promote what has been done in Fife and across Scotland to promote safer communities, but let us also ensure that we involve the whole community. My particular plea is that we involve young people in developing safer community ideals.
I congratulate Christine May on securing this evening's debate. I also congratulate members of the Fife team, who are with us in the gallery, and others like them around Scotland.
I am pleased to see the uptake of the antisocial behaviour measures. From a time when some people were, at best, sceptical about them and, at worst, downright hostile towards them, we have now moved to a time when people have recognised the benefits that the measures can bring. Before anyone accuses me of being smug, I hasten to add that I accept that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is not a panacea, but neither—I suggest to Mr Brocklebank—would more police be a panacea. I am sure, however, that Mr Brocklebank will accept that we have more police now than ever. I and colleagues who supported the antisocial behaviour measures never said that the 2004 act would solve all the problems, but we acknowledged that something had to be done.
I will mention a couple of the positive things relating to community safety that have resulted from the 2004 act. West Lothian Council, like many others in Scotland, established neighbourhood response teams consisting of community safety wardens, other council employees and the police. I recently met some of the community safety wardens in Blackburn and saw the work that they are doing in building confidence in a community that had lost confidence. One of the dreadful things about antisocial behaviour is that it undermines the confidence of individuals and communities so that they feel that they cannot complain and cannot stop the bad things that are happening. As a result, the antisocial behaviour continues and gets worse. People are getting to know the wardens and feel able to speak to them about their concerns. Just as important is that the wardens are getting to know the people, to see where trouble might develop and to stop it before it does. Wardens are not, as some people have suggested, the poor man's police officers; they play a different role but one that is complementary to that of the police.
I would also like to mention the dispersal order in Mid Calder in West Lothian. Mid Calder is not in my constituency, but my colleague Bristow Muldoon has given me permission to mention it this evening. He is happy for us to share in his pride. We were told that dispersal orders were a step too far, that young people would be hounded from the streets, and that they would rise up against the adults who were stealing their freedom. What nonsense. I had confidence that the police and the local authorities would use their powers appropriately, and they have done so. Despite repeated efforts to stop youths in Mid Calder fighting one another and restricting the lives of local people, the police were making no progress, but as we have all seen from the media coverage, a dispersal order has stopped such behaviour. It allows people—including young people—to go about their business every day. The police report that the drop in the number of calls to them has been dramatic. It was feared that dispersal orders would simply move problems elsewhere, but that has not happened.
Only last night I spoke to Charlie Raeburn of West Lothian Council. He is involved in establishing midnight football to give young people who would otherwise be hanging about the streets something constructive to do. The police are now talking about withdrawing the dispersal order. I hope that they can do that soon.
I said at the start of my speech that antisocial behaviour legislation is not the answer to every problem, but it has given people a steer on how to go about changing unacceptable behaviour. As Christine May's motion points out, other actions are needed to address specific problems; for example, actions to reduce domestic abuse, to curb drink driving, and to reduce misuse of alcohol—a problem that will be addressed by the new licensing laws. However, the legislation on antisocial behaviour has provided us with two very important lessons: that agencies, communities and individuals can solve problems by working together; and that, by suggesting solutions, we can change people's behaviour and improve the quality of life for everybody.
I, too, will begin by commending Christine May, whose approach was largely positive. She began her speech by emphasising the positive interventions that can change behaviour, the community spirit that can be built up, and the kind of activities that are largely driven by communities themselves rather than being driven by organisations that have statutory bases or authority or by a policy approach. She ended her speech by talking about the work of people in communities and people in police forces and local authorities. I echo her sentiments.
Members will know that my party did not support the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill 2004. We were not the only party not to support it, but we were one of the few. On every occasion on which we debated the issue, I explained my reservations and concerns and I emphasised that I commended the Executive for taking the issue seriously and for giving it priority. However, I felt that the bill took the wrong approach. I argued that positive interventions should take priority: I argued for reinvigorating our approach to youth work, for reform of the children's hearings system, and for a review of social work. I also argued that such preventive measures should take priority, rather than the enforcement measures that dominated the bill.
However, the bill took the focus that it did and contained enforcement measures such as antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s. The following figures are from November, so they may be slightly out of date. There were two antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s, no parenting orders and one restriction of liberty order for an under-16. The measures were introduced by the 2004 act and were talked up as being an important part of the solution to a problem that was described as afflicting communities the length and breadth of the country. It is clear that enforcement orders were not the solution—they are not being taken up. Members are talking about success and about improvements, but those improvements are not the result of a widespread use of enforcement orders.
Maggie Mellon of Children 1st summed it up best when she said that many of the enforcement mechanisms are not the appropriate way forward because relationships are not amenable to orders. We must affect relationships if we want to change behaviour rather than move it. Many of the measures, including enforcement, have a role, but enforcement should not be the position to which we leap automatically. Technological solutions such as electronic tags and CCTV have a role in limited circumstances, but they can be a knee-jerk reaction. Instead of CCTV, we should examine lighting, streetscaping and the many other options that can be more effective at changing behaviour. Such solutions are not subject to the kind of intrusive abuse to which CCTV, for example, has been south of the border.
In all honesty, I hope that I am wrong and that the use of enforcement measures, even in a limited number of cases, is effective. I hope that we come to the next election without the ratcheted-up respect agenda from the Executive parties that we have seen down south. As I wrote recently in The Big Issue in Scotland, I hope that I will be able to eat my hat, but I remain sceptical.
I, too, congratulate Christine May and thank the Fife team, who are in the gallery, for all their hard work.
Patrick Harvie alluded to the fact that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill came screaming and shouting through the Parliament with a gnashing of teeth. I was in the chair during the debate on the bill's general principles and during stage 3, and both were very difficult. Some people disliked the language that we used; they said that we were introducing a nanny state and that we should not pass such legislation—Patrick Harvie just said that in his speech.
What does Christine May's motion tell us? It tells us that, at least in Fife, there are safer routes to school, there are safer neighbourhoods and the personal safety of older people and women is being addressed. I hope that there has been a decrease in domestic violence, too. The motion also shows that the communities of Fife are working together because they have legislation to back them up. No constituency is without antisocial behaviour problems. In my constituency, the villages of Port Glasgow, Kilmalcolm—which is allegedly very posh—Lochwinnoch and Kilbarkin are all experiencing moments of very serious antisocial behaviour.
I want to look at the case of Robert Street in Port Glasgow in particular. When I first went to my constituency, tenants in Robert Street said that they had lived there for many years and that it had been the kind of area in which they had no need to close their doors. Soon, however, problems with drug users, drug pushers and absentee landlords filled the street. "Enough is enough," is what the tenants of Robert Street told me. The better neighbourhood fund swung into action and immediately Robert Street got five dedicated policemen. A leaflet went round the area giving the police phone number and telling residents that if they were in trouble or saw something that they did not like, they should phone the police.
The lighting in the street was changed, and that was a very important step. Literally within two months, there were no drug users or pushers and the absentee landlords were trying to sell their flats. The whole area and the whole community changed for the better.
A committee of local people looked at their area, did something about it and made it safer for everyone who lived there. One older woman said to me that she could go out in the winter after 4 o'clock for the first time in years because the street was lit up. She could see where she was going, and, more important, people could see her.
Having said that, the kids still had nowhere to go so the community hired a local church, which is now a permanent facility. It has a computer suite with 12 terminals, a cafe, a youth club and keep-fit classes twice a week. That shows us how our legislation means that communities, supported by the council and the police, can make progress and make their area a better place to live.
Does the member accept that much of what she is talking about, positive though it is, is not the result of the enforcement measures that dominated the bill? She is talking about the result of different agencies working together. Those strategies were the only part of the bill that attracted universal support.
I do not deny that. However, people in Robert Street tell me that they feel that they can go forward and get action because, at the end of the day, there is supportive legislation.
I do not have much time, so I will move on quickly. Community wardens and local people have also worked together successfully in Renfrewshire, which the minister will know because he represents part of that area.
I get a bit worried when I hear what is said about people in Glasgow. They are criticised because a few ASBOs have been issued. My understanding of the legislation is that issuing an ASBO is the last resort and that we try everything else first. Ultimately, however, Joe Public has said that enough is enough. The public wants legislation that says that if a situation gets bad enough, something can be done about it. I am pleased that hundreds of ASBOs have not been issued in Glasgow, because that may indicate that the authorities are working properly with the whole act, and, as Patrick Harvie knows, the act is about much more than ASBOs. I get a bit anxious when people say the things that he just said. I agree that we have to work on the area that he suggested, but legislation is also necessary because antisocial behaviour policy is based on a gradual approach, with preventive and voluntary measures. If those measures do not work, ASBOs or more serious measures can be applied. That approach is what everyone in my constituency is asking for, although some might tell me, "I never thought that I would say this, but the circumstances that I'm living in mean that that is what I need." That is why we passed the legislation and why it is working.
I thank Christine May for the opportunity to, in her words, celebrate and focus on the responsible majority. She is absolutely right; the majority of people in communities across Scotland want to lead quiet and peaceful lives. They want to be good neighbours and citizens. In too many places in Scotland, it is a disgrace that the tiny minority of people that members spoke about are causing such mayhem and blighting the lives of so many. That cannot be allowed.
It is right that we need to work to change behaviour. We need a long-term strategy to make people behave responsibly; we need to eliminate poverty and deprivation. I will repeat something that I have said on many occasions, and which Ted Brocklebank mentioned in passing: poverty is no excuse for bad behaviour. Many members grew up in poor circumstances, but our parents would not have allowed us to behave in the way that some people are allowed to behave today. It is a slight and an insult to poor people to always associate them with bad behaviour. Some of the examples that I hear about are of bad behaviour from people who are well-to-do and who have access to means, but who do not give a damn about those around them. We need to put that in perspective.
Christine May gave some excellent examples of how partnership between the Executive, local authority, police and local agencies can begin to make a difference. When we give support, either by way of legislation—which, as Trish Godman said, provides back-up to communities—or by way of funding, it makes a difference only if there is the imagination and determination at the local level to make a difference. Christine May gave some very good examples of how CCTV, community wardens, drink-driving campaigns and action to tackle drug dealers has an impact on local communities. The time2act campaign in Fife is an exceptionally good approach; we will wait with interest to see exactly what results it produces.
Mention was also made of examples such as the use of a mobile CCTV unit in Buckhaven. I am extremely interested in how that initiative pans out. I have seen a mobile CCTV unit at work in Glasgow and I am extremely impressed by the flexibility and quality of evidence and information that can be obtained from such units. Flexibility is key to what mobile CCTV can bring: instead of using a fixed unit to target one or two streets, a mobile unit can be deployed to the locations where there is a problem. I assure Christine May that I will see whether the Executive can build on that work, by whatever means.
Christine May asked me to visit Fife. I must apologise to her in some respects. Last year, Scott Barrie asked me to visit Fife to look at some of the issues in Dunfermline, which I know apply elsewhere, and I am remiss in not having done so as yet. I will come to Fife to see what is going on. I have visited Fife on a number of occasions to launch or participate in some of the initiatives that were mentioned in the debate. Fife has a commendable record in applying legislation, policy and resources in an imaginative way.
I want to correct some of the comments that Patrick Harvie made, one of which was that enforcement measures are not the solution because they are not being taken up. In addressing his comments, I will leave aside the issue of ASBOs. As Iain Smith said, if ASBOs are not being used, it is a sign of success. To some extent there is no need to take action in safe and effective communities where there are no problems. However, it is not a sign of success if the problems are allowed to persist because the measures are not being used. I encourage councils across Scotland to use the measures.
I return to Patrick Harvie's point about the antisocial behaviour measures not being taken up. Across Scotland we have had 12 closure orders on premises, at least four of which were made in Fife, which is leading the way in Scotland. We have also had 366 warning notices on the seizure of vehicles, with 16 vehicles seized. Again, Fife is leading the way, with 198 notices and nine seizures respectively. We have had 688 warning notices and 33 fixed-penalty notices for noise nuisance. The fixed-penalty notice pilot on antisocial behaviour in Tayside has resulted in 2,300 fixed-penalty notices being issued. We have had 28 ASBOs on conviction and 16 electronic monitorings for under-16s through the children's hearings system. We have had 26 community reparation orders. Do not tell me that the measures are not being used. My concern is that they are being used very effectively in some areas but not to the same effect elsewhere. We need to find out what lies behind that.
Tonight's debate has been a good one. As Mary Mulligan rightly said, antisocial behaviour undermines confidence. Also, as I said earlier, antisocial behaviour does not only happen in the most deprived areas. In addition to highlighting problems in Port Glasgow, which is a deprived community, Trish Godman gave examples of the better-off areas in her constituency where antisocial behaviour is a problem. One of the areas that she did not mention tonight, about which she has spoken to me on a number of occasions, is Bridge of Weir. That is another apparently relatively affluent area that suffers from persistent antisocial behaviour in one or two parts of the town.
I agree that there are issues to tackle. One issue that was raised is that of police numbers and how the police are used. I remind Ted Brocklebank that we do not accept that the number of police officers that we inherited from the Conservatives was sufficient. That is why we have increased police numbers to record levels. Moreover, we have a system and a principle of allowing chief constables to decide at a local level how staff and resources are used operationally in particular areas.
Will the minister give way?
No I will not, because I am just about to finish.
It is a matter for chief constables to decide how they use their resources. Fife constabulary has a record of being at the forefront of using resources effectively, and I congratulate everybody in that police force on that record.
Christine May has done us a service in allowing us to explore some of the general issues. I was intrigued by Ted Brocklebank's parable of poor Annabel, who was subject to antisocial behaviour. I do not diminish the seriousness of that individual's problems, but I wondered whether there was more to the parable of Annabel suffering from antisocial behaviour, being menaced and threatened by people around her who were behaving badly and not being able to find any solace until those responsible were removed. Annabel in Fife has finally found some solace; I hope that, in the Parliament, the other Annabel might eventually find similar solace.
Tonight's debate has been interesting, and I thank all the members who participated. I congratulate all those in Fife who are tackling antisocial behaviour and I look forward to seeing at first hand the difference that is being made there and elsewhere.
Meeting closed at 17:52.