Scottish Parliament, 2 June 2005

442 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 2 June 2005

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-2901, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. I invite any member who wishes to speak on this motion to press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated (each time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress):

Group 1 - 25 mins Groups 2 to 4 - 50 mins Groups 5 to 8 - 1 hour 15 mins Groups 9 to 11 - 1 hour 55 ministers—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr MacAskill, do you wish to speak?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry. No, I do not wish to speak on this motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is always better to be clear about these things.

Motion agreed to.

Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill: Preliminary Stage

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2876, in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, on behalf of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

Members who wish to speak might consider pressing their request-to-speak buttons.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I came into the Scottish Parliament in January of this year and other members will know better than I that this is the seventh private bill that the Parliament has considered. The bill was introduced on 27 October 2004 by its promoter—the trustees of the Baird Trust. Despite my late arrival on the scene, I present this preliminary stage report to Parliament today. I do so as convener of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee, on behalf of the members of that committee.

Private bills are introduced by a promoter, who can be an individual, a company or a group of people who wish to obtain powers or benefits in excess of the general law. Private bills are not introduced by a member of the Scottish Parliament, as bills normally are; therefore, a private bill cannot have a member in charge.

I will take a few minutes to outline the process of the consideration of this bill to date and the procedure that we will follow if the Parliament agrees to the general principles today. Following the introduction of a private bill, any person who feels that their interests would be adversely affected by the bill can object to it. They have 60 days to do so and that 60-day period is known as the objection period. The objection period for the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill ran from 27 October 2004 to 7 January 2005. No objections were received. The bill is non-contentious.

The Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee was established in March. It consists of five members, none of whom has any connection with the promoter of the bill. Before I turn to the detail of the preliminary stage report, I would like to record my thanks to the committee. The procedures were new not only to me, but to the other committee members. I thank them for their work and assistance to date. I also thank the clerks for their assistance in guiding us through the process—and possibly turning us into private bill anoraks.

The preliminary stage of the bill began when the committee was established in March. The committee's role at preliminary stage is to report to the Parliament on two issues: first, the general principles of the bill; and secondly, whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. The committee may also give a preliminary view on objections. However, as I say, we had no objections to consider.

The committee took evidence on the general principles of the bill on 3 May and I would like to thank those who came to the meeting to give evidence. We published our preliminary stage report last Tuesday; today's debate provides the Parliament with an opportunity to consider its recommendations.

If the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, we hope that the bill will move directly to its final stage. Normally at this point, a private bill would move to the consideration stage, which, I believe, is similar to stage 2 of a public bill. At consideration stage, the committee can hear further evidence from the promoter and consider any amendments to the bill. However, as no objections have been received and no member of the committee wishes to lodge an amendment, the committee recommends that the Parliamentary Bureau consider suspending the relevant standing orders in order to omit the consideration stage for this bill.

The final stage of a private bill is broadly similar to stage 3 of a public bill. It takes place at a meeting of the Parliament and begins with consideration of any amendments to the bill. This is followed by a debate on whether to pass the bill.

As members will no doubt be aware, the private bill process has recently attracted some criticism, particularly in relation to how the process is used for large works bills, such as the Edinburgh Tram (Line 1) Bill, the Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill and the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, which are currently going through Parliament. Colleagues on the Procedures Committee recently held an inquiry into the process and have made a number of recommendations for handling future applications for private legislation. The committee concluded that both longer-term overhaul and shorter-term improvements were required. The proposed changes would go a long way towards simplifying the private bills process for all parties. That is especially important when we consider that the Parliament expects at least three major works bills to be introduced this year.

However, my committee would like to put it on record that we feel that the private bills process has worked well for the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. In our opinion, the process is appropriate for small non-works bills that are largely non-contentious and straightforward—bills such as the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. The process has been used to good effect before—I am told that it was used for the National Galleries of Scotland Bill, which was passed by the Parliament in 2003. Like the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill, that bill did not authorise the construction of large transport infrastructure.

I turn now to the detail of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. The bill is concise and does exactly what it says on the tin. I will give members a little background information on the Baird Trust and on why the bill was needed. The original Baird Trust was set up by James Baird by deed of trust in 1873 to assist the Church of Scotland in furthering its work in Scotland. The trust was formally incorporated as the Baird Trust by an act of Parliament in 1939 and its constitution was amended by subsequent acts of Parliament in 1957 and 1971. Currently, the only way of amending the constitution of the trust is to promote an act of the Scottish Parliament. I will come to the reason for that in a moment.

The trustees of the Baird Trust felt that the objectives of the trust required to be updated to widen the scope of the charity's work and to update the administrative arrangements so that they befit a modern trust. Various alternative legal structures were considered by the trustees. In the end, they felt that the most appropriate and cost-effective method was to change the trust into a charitable company limited by guarantee. Such a structure is the norm for modern charities. Having such a structure would remove the need for, and the associated expense of, promoting further private bills whenever changes to the trust's constitution were needed.

The bill is small and focused. It transfers the property, rights, interests and liabilities of the Baird Trust to those of a charitable company limited by guarantee. In doing so, the bill also updates the objectives and scope of the trust's work. Incidentally, the Baird Trust currently has assets of £7.2 million. In 2004, it spent, distributed or donated some £265,000.

The main changes that are introduced by the bill will widen the membership and powers of investment of the trust. They will allow trust funds to be used to support churches outwith the Church of Scotland and churches outside Scotland. That is an innovative move.

In order properly to scrutinise the general principles of the bill, the committee invited representatives of the promoter and David Campbell, who is a reporter to the inner house of the Court of Session on the reorganisation of public trusts, to give evidence. At our meeting at the start of last month, some interesting issues were raised by those who gave evidence. I would like to take a little time to discuss those issues in more detail.

In his evidence, David Campbell confirmed that, in his opinion, the proposed new legal structure was entirely in keeping with modern charity administration. That is an important point when we bear in mind the current changes in charity law.

If passed, the bill would have the effect of widening the membership and scope of the trust, to enable it to support the work of churches outwith the Church of Scotland and, indeed, churches outside Scotland itself. As they said in "Father Ted", that would be an ecumenical matter.

On a more serious note, the committee views the changes to be brought in by the bill as positive. We note in particular that no objections were raised during the consultation and objection periods.

Also of note are the proposed changes to the long-established Baird lecture; the changes may illustrate why the promoter feels that the bill is necessary. The Baird lecture was established from the beginning of the trust. However, the promoter feels that the conditions imposed on the lecture—who can deliver it, how often it should take place, the method of delivery and the content—are now far too restrictive. They do not take account of modern-day technology such as the internet or even television and video communication. That is one of the areas that the memorandum and articles of association for the proposed new trust addresses. In effect, the lecture will be replaced by a new Baird presentation, the arrangements for which will be much more wide ranging.

The committee is satisfied that the bill will have the effect of increasing public scrutiny of the trust, which is in keeping with the aim of modernisation. That is because, as well as being scrutinised by the Inland Revenue and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, the reorganised trust's annual accounts will need to be lodged with Companies House, which will also have to be informed of changes to the trustees or secretary. Those records are open to the public.

The bill's promoter suggests that the trust's investment powers are somewhat restricted by the Trustee Investment Act 1961. The arrangements for the reorganised trust will widen those powers to give the trustees greater discretion on the range of investments that they can make. Members will be aware that the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill is progressing through Parliament. During its evidence, the promoter explained that it had examined whether that bill could have any impact on the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and decided that it could not.

The committee is satisfied that the bill's general principles are sound and that the accompanying documents satisfy the technical criteria that are set down in standing orders and allow for proper scrutiny of the bill. If the Parliament is minded to agree to the bill's general principles today, we hope that the bill will move to final stage consideration at a future meeting of the Parliament. On behalf of the committee, I ask the Parliament to agree to the general principles of the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am grateful for the Presiding Officer's indulgence of my earlier technical error. On that note, it is appropriate that I should thank the clerks, the committee's convener and the other members of the committee for dealing with the technical aspects of the bill, which, to some extent—along with technology—remain beyond me.

It is appropriate for us to support fully the bill's purpose. We operate in a magnificent Parliament that deals with a variety of tasks; the Parliament is charged with tackling a multitude of issues for the people of Scotland. Yesterday, grand affairs of state were mentioned in the First Minister's report on his trip to Malawi. Later this morning, there will be a debate on dealing with antisocial behaviour—that debate is vital to life in Scotland. This afternoon, we will consider the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which is crucial legislation. It is clear that the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill does not fall within the ambit of any of those matters. However, we are the Parliament for the people of Scotland and the committee decided that there was no avenue for making the required changes to the Baird Trust other than through a private bill.

The convener was correct to point out that the Baird Trust was legislated for back in the last century. As the inheritors of Westminster's powers, our only way forward is to tackle the issue through a bill. We should do so not begrudgingly, but in a manner that takes on board what is necessary. The bill does not deal with grand affairs of state, but it is important for the Baird Trust, its members and the many people who benefit from it. Consideration of the bill will take up 30 minutes of our day, which is not a great deal. Members who have served on the committee have been required to attend two meetings. We should just accept that.

As the committee's convener said, it is clear that there is no opposition to the proposed changes, which are perfectly sensible—even if we do not know in what position they will put the Baird Trust or what they will allow it to do. I happened to see "Newsnight" last night, on which there was a debate involving a Liberal Democrat MP and a Labour MSP and minister. It may be that the Baird Trust will wish to deal with matters furth of Scotland. The Lib Dem MP—with whom I have to say I disagreed—suggested that the links between Scotland and Malawi were not especially strong. If he studied the history of the Church of the Scotland and of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Malawi, he would realise that there were significant links between those bodies. We might not like to crow too much about some of those links—such as the attendance of Dr Hastings Banda at university and divinity college here—but the links between the church in Scotland and the church in Malawi are important. If the reorganisation of the Baird Trust provides an opportunity to expand the links between Scotland and Malawi, it is important.

The reason why the Parliament is dealing with the trust's reorganisation is that no other body in Scotland is capable of doing so. We are Scotland's legislature. The issue requires legislation; we cannot pass it on to a charity commissioner or regulator, the churches or the local authorities. The buck stops with us—that is why it has been appropriate and correct for us to go about our task under the guidance of the convener and the clerking team.

It is clear that we can deal with trust's reorganisation through an accelerated procedure. The Procedures Committee is reviewing how private bills are dealt with by the Parliament. Every now and again, we will have to deal with historical anachronisms. Although that adds to our work, we should accept that it is part of the responsibility that goes with being elected to the office of member of the Scottish Parliament. The proposed change is limited and we have satisfied ourselves that it will not cause any problems, but will allow the Baird Trust to do more effectively what James Baird originally charged it with doing. I commend the motion to the Parliament.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I apologise for being two minutes late for the debate. Notwithstanding what was said during yesterday's transport debate, the delay was caused by a public transport problem.

The Scottish Conservatives most certainly support the modernisation of a trust that does important work. Quite simply, the bill seeks to make three major changes. First, the scope of the trust's work will be extended from supporting the Church of Scotland to supporting any church. Secondly, the current restriction whereby trustees must be members of the Church of Scotland will be lifted. Thirdly, the restriction that only trustees can be members of the trust will be lifted, which will open up tremendously the opportunities that the bill affords the trust.

I was concerned to note that market comparisons show that, to date, the rate of return on investments that the trust has achieved has not been great. As the convener of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee stated, by allowing greater discretion to be exercised on investments, the trust will be brought into the modern age.

I and other members of the committee believe that the proposed changes are compatible with those that are contained in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. We should allow the trust to reform. In its new form, it will be able to achieve its objectives in a clearer and more focused manner. In a much more complicated financial world, it will have far more flexibility to do its job.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I will not take up too much more of the Parliament's time because I am conscious that the next debate is important.

As we have heard, the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill is technical, short and focused. However, that does not make it any less important. Indeed, the Baird Trust has assets of more than £7 million—a not inconsiderable sum. I reiterate the committee's recommendations to Parliament. The bill provides for the necessary reorganisation of the trust. It seeks to simplify the trust's structure and to improve and broaden the trust's ability to support churches and church activities. It provides for an administrative structure that is more suitable for a modern charity, aids public scrutiny of the trust and widens the trust's membership. It will comply with the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill that is going through Parliament, which will receive stage 3 consideration next week, and will remove the need for future private bills to address the trust's needs. That is important. As we have heard, the trust was set up by an act of Parliament and has been modified by acts of Parliament on two subsequent occasions. If we progress with the reorganisation as the committee suggests, there will no longer be a need to return to Parliament to address the trust's needs. That is as it should be.

The committee's members have scrutinised the promoter's proposals and are satisfied that the promoter is acting in good faith and that the new trust will be administered and regulated in a way that is appropriate for a modern charity. I hope that later this afternoon, Parliament will concur with the committee's recommendations.

Antisocial Behaviour

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2893, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on antisocial behaviour.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We know that people want to live in communities where the threat of crime and disorder does not hand like a pall over their homes. People want to live in communities where they do not have to put up with mindless and thuggish behaviour. I am talking about the kind of behaviour that makes elderly people frightened to leave their homes and children afraid to play outside—the kind of antisocial behaviour that saps people's confidence, undermines their hope for a better future and, of course, undermines respect.

We had to persuade many professional, political and, indeed, some media people that antisocial behaviour was and is a real problem in Scotland. What we did not have to do was persuade the hard-pressed communities that live with it every day. Despite the early opposition and concerns of some, we knew that we had to deliver for those communities.

Today, I want to report on how we are delivering, and also say something about what more we need to do. Before I do that, I think that it is worth putting this work into the context of the wider reforms that we are undertaking. We are making our courts more effective, accessible and responsive to communities; tackling the problems of reoffending; putting more police than ever before into our police forces and on to our streets; introducing programmes to tackle the scourge of drugs—programmes like the drug dealers don't care campaign; tackling the culture of violence; addressing knife crime; and taking steps to deal with the stain of sectarianism. All that work will help to make daily life safer for Scotland's people and to tackle antisocial behaviour.

I will give one example of how those various strands fit together. Drugs and antisocial behaviour often go hand in hand; the premises that are used for drug dealing frequently become the focus of antisocial behaviour. People are often too frightened to complain, but the drug dealers don't care campaign showed that, with the right sort of approach, we can help those communities to take a stand against the drug dealers.

The closure orders that are provided under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 can be used to give immediate relief to those near the premises, allowing the police time to deal with the criminal activity. That provision links to our proposals for reinvesting the proceeds of crime back into the communities that are hardest hit by the effects of drugs and antisocial behaviour. In that way, we are giving something tangible back to those communities. The same approach of tackling the problem from all angles characterises the reforms that we are undertaking.

I want to say a few words about how we are tackling antisocial behaviour and about our progress so far. Ministers have seen at first hand how the measures in the act are being used and the difference that they are making to our communities. People who have suffered years of noise nuisance can now—and perhaps for the first time—sleep peacefully.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I would like to finish the point.

That may not mean much to politicians and professionals in the leafy suburbs, but it means a lot to people who have faced years—and I mean years—of that kind of behaviour on their doorsteps. I am interested in the comments of real people. One resident in Montrose said about a closure order:

"It has been a living hell for all the rest of us. It will be bliss for the first time in months to have some peace and quiet".

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In commenting on the progress of the act, is the minister disappointed at the apparent lack of interest in issuing antisocial behaviour orders and the apparent inertia in using the much-vaunted dispersal powers?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I will move on to address those points.

Since October 2004, four closure orders have been granted to police forces in Fife, Lothian and Borders and Tayside. Sheriffs in the Scottish Borders, Falkirk, West Lothian and Aberdeenshire have, between them, granted 10 ASBOs on conviction. In addition, the dispersal powers have been used in the Grampian police area. Fife Constabulary has used the powers of the act to seize vehicles that were being used in an antisocial manner and have issued 34 warning notices. Since April, police in Tayside, who are piloting the use of fixed penalty notices for more routine types of antisocial behaviour, have issued more than 400 notices.

It is not just the measures in the act that are having an impact, although things are beginning to come through in that respect. We are also seeing the positive results of the substantial extra funding that we have provided, which, it is worth remembering, is more than £113 million over four years. We have put 550 community wardens on to the streets of those hard-pressed communities across Scotland. The wardens are proving very popular—they are already having a real impact. I want to repeat a comment that I have used in the chamber before, which is that, in Fraserburgh, wardens have helped to reduce incidents of youth disorder by 55 per cent and vandalism by 16 per cent over the period that they have been in operation. One resident in Fraserburgh said:

"You can actually see it's made a difference. You don't have so many kids running about causing trouble and there does seem to be less graffiti and vandalism".

The dedicated antisocial behaviour teams or co-ordinators in virtually every local authority area are now beginning to deal with serious cases of antisocial behaviour; they are bringing them to court.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I will give way to the member whose constituency I have just mentioned.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The residents of Fraserburgh welcome the changes. However, does the minister accept that the big change that many businesses in the town of Fraserburgh want is increased overnight police cover? They want that cover at weekends in particular, when substantial problems remain. Wardens are not a substitute for police.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Indeed, and no one has ever suggested that wardens are a substitute for the police. In working alongside the police, wardens are part of the solution to the problem. Some of the measures that have been taken to tackle retail crime in particular have been welcomed by, for example, the Scottish Retail Consortium.

I want to make the important point that antisocial behaviour legislation, coupled with the extra funding that is linked to the wider justice reforms, is beginning to show that we are taking a stand and that we are making a difference to people's lives. We have come a long way, but there is a lot more that has still to be done.

I want to mention a couple of issues that relate to points that Miss Goldie raised and on which other members will no doubt want to comment. The first is the consistent use of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 across the country. I have heard some rumblings—no doubt members will have too—about agencies that are not willing under any circumstances to use some of the measures in the act. That is simply not acceptable.

Local communities have a right to know that a consistent approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is happening across the country. I am referring to action by the local authorities, police, children's hearings system or the courts. We all acknowledge that a lot of antisocial behaviour results from some very deep-seated problems that require long-term solutions. Scottish ministers are totally committed to addressing those problems. However, the problems that individuals face should not and must not stop us from dealing with the effects of their antisocial behaviour on others. It is not acceptable to say to victims of antisocial behaviour that they have to suffer in silence until someone else's problems have been dealt with. We have to help the perpetrators to acknowledge and change their behaviour while, at the same time, we bring relief to those who suffer from it.

I have emphasised that point because I want to send a clear message to all the agencies, at a time when they are finalising their antisocial behaviour strategies, that ruling out the use of any of the measures in the act is not acceptable. A blanket refusal by any agency in any part of Scotland not only undermines the will of the Scottish Parliament, but fails the local people they should be trying to help. That does not mean that legal measures should be used indiscriminately, however. Local antisocial behaviour strategies need to reflect the need for prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation as well as enforcement. That said, we expect legal measures to be used when appropriate, including ASBOs for under 16s, parenting orders and dispersal.

I want to knock on the head any idea or perception that ministers are interested only in the number of ASBOs, closure notices or dispersal orders obtained. Of course, we need to know how the measures are being used. Members, quite rightly, ask ministers about that all the time. Indeed, there is a legal requirement to report on the use of ASBOs and dispersal.

Executive funding from 2006 is tied to the achievement of outcomes, not the number of times the measures in the act are used. Community planning partnerships must show that they have made real, tangible, and measurable improvements on the ground for the people in our local communities. An outcome agreement approach is not a blank cheque: community planning partnerships that fail to deliver real outcomes for their communities and, at the same time, fail to use the measures in the act must be held to account.

Our strategy is showing that people in Scotland can stand up to antisocial behaviour if local agencies and local people work together. I want to congratulate the agencies that are blazing the trail. Having said that, an equally determined and consistent approach needs to be taken to tackling antisocial behaviour across the country and that approach should include using the measures in the act when that is the appropriate thing to do. The people of Scotland have a right to expect that the good practice that we are seeing in some areas becomes the norm across Scotland. We must achieve that if we are to foster confidence in our public services and regenerate the respect that we all want in our society.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that people in all parts of Scotland should be able to live free from fear and harassment; welcomes the commencement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 and the progress made to date to act against antisocial behaviour; believes that the preparation of antisocial behaviour outcome agreements linked to antisocial behaviour strategies by local authorities working with local communities will help build confidence across Scotland; notes that ongoing work is needed to build confidence in our communities, and urges local agencies across Scotland to use the full range of measures at their disposal appropriate to local circumstances.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Ministers are correct to address the problem and the Executive is correct to take steps to deal with it. Antisocial behaviour blights communities and makes individuals' lives a thorough misery. It affects health and undermines the fabric of society. It is corrosive to communities.

We must remember that although some antisocial behaviour is criminal, some is not. We must deal with those matters differently. For example, it is clear that noise, on which the minister commented, must be addressed, as must drug peddling. However, other matters are not necessarily criminal, such as failing to clean the common stair or to cut the grass on a common or in a close. Such behaviour is antisocial and we must accept that it undermines the ethos of a community, but it cannot be dealt with as a criminal matter. That is not to say that all such behaviour is acceptable—clearly, it is not. All that I am saying is that some antisocial behaviour is not criminal and cannot be dealt with simply by the police or by prosecution. We require other avenues to deal with it.

We accept that part of the Executive's motion about taking the powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which we supported. It is necessary, however, to ensure that local authorities and other agencies are properly resourced, not simply chastised and castigated for not dealing with matters. However, if the measures are to work, it is important to have that aspect of the armoury.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the member accept that £113 million over the period that I specified represents extremely substantial resources to address the problems?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I accept that that substantial amount of money has been provided, but local authorities have other departments that are imploding and must rob Peter to pay Paul. Local authority social work departments have difficulties and stretched resources. We welcome the money, but if it leaks out through other holes in the proverbial local authority bucket, a significant problem exists.

The powers are just one aspect and they are not the whole solution. The powers are fine for some, but they are probably only the few. We must address the root causes and not just the symptoms and the malaise. If we are to go to the roots of offending, we must address the causes of criminality and not just the crimes.

We must accept the extent of the problem. The minister is correct that whole areas are being made miserable, but in substantial parts of Scotland, such as the leafy suburbs in which I and no doubt other members live, antisocial behaviour is not a problem or is addressed in the community. We must put matters in perspective. Scotland is not a war zone, although—unfortunately—some areas tend to resemble one. We as legislators have a duty to address that.

We must not portray action as a war on a generation. The overwhelming majority of youngsters are a credit to themselves, to their families and to their communities. We must not be seen as lecturing and hectoring them. Moreover, we must remember that the root cause of a child or youngster's participation in criminality may be his mother's heroin addiction or his father's alcohol dependency. It ill befits those of our generation to castigate the younger generation if the problems stem from our generation. As I said, we must address the roots of criminality.

We must deal with the problem, create a culture and bring it on board in a variety of ways. I do not normally support Tony Blair, but it is necessary to encourage respect. The Scottish National Party's position is that taking powers is appropriate, but that it is essential for society and individuals to take responsibility. Individuals must accept that actions have consequences. If someone throws a stone, it might injure someone or break something. People cannot make excuses that they did not mean that to happen. They must remember that actions have consequences.

People must take it on board that they must respect others' rights. Other people in the community or in their stair have the right to have their views respected and to have the volume of music kept lower when they are trying to sleep. People must take their turn at cleaning the common stair and—especially if they are young, fit and able-bodied—at cutting the front green, rather than leaving it to a pensioner. All those matters require respect.

It is difficult to legislate for respect. That is why we believe that the powers are simply one aspect. Legislation cannot say, "You must respect your elders." That is impossible. However, that does not mean that we as a society do not strive to be tough on the causes of crime as well as on crime itself. That takes education, work with voluntary bodies and work with youngsters. The minister should take on board the points that Tony Blair has made, because it is correct to address not only social responsibility, but individual responsibility to others in the community. People practise that with their families and we must accept that they should also do so in the broader community.

How do we address that? We do not do that simply by repression. If we move youngsters from outside one shop or one place to another place, all that we do is displace the problem. We must do what Strathclyde police—to their credit—are trialling in the likes of South Lanarkshire, which takes on board what places such as Sweden do in trying to work out who the children are, why they are standing in a place and whether they have a problem at home. [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the member accept that that is exactly what we are asking local authorities to do in their approaches to drawing up antisocial behaviour strategies for their areas? Will he accept that at no point in my speech did I suggest that antisocial behaviour was caused only by young people?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am happy to accept that and I am not suggesting that—I am well aware of the minister's commitment to youngsters. However, the perception—if not the reality from the minister—is of an attack on a generation of youngsters and of repression rather than seeking to reform and rehabilitate. We must learn lessons not only from Sweden, but—as the minister agrees—from what is happening in the likes of South Lanarkshire. We must work out the causes of criminality. If the cause is a parent's heroin addiction or another drug addiction, that must be addressed. If the cause is a lack of employment, we must tackle it. We cannot simply deal with the behaviour.

Back not only in 1997, but in the mid-1990s, when Labour attacked a Tory Government that had ravaged housing estates by creating areas of mass unemployment into which heroin flowed, Tony Blair said that Labour would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. In moving our amendment, the SNP supports the Executive in being tough on crime, but the perception and the reality are that the Executive is not being tough on the causes of crime. That is why we must address social and individual responsibility and respect for all. Our society should address the three Ds that blight our country—drink, drugs and deprivation.

I move amendment S2M-2893.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"believes that the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 offers further options and powers to relevant local authorities and agencies; notes, however, that appropriate resourcing of police, local authorities and other local, national and voluntary agencies is a prerequisite for tackling antisocial behaviour, as is co-operation and interaction between, and amongst, them and national government; believes that individuals must accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences of these and, in addition, respect the rights of others in their community and society, and further believes that it is essential that government at all levels accepts responsibility for all communities within Scotland and addresses, not just social exclusion, but also the scourge of drink, drugs and deprivation that scar our land."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

All political parties agree that antisocial behaviour blights too many of our communities. To that end, I record once again that the Conservatives supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. We supported it in committee and at stages 1 and 3, yet Mr McConnell harbours the illusion that we did not support it at all.

We were extremely uneasy with aspects of the 2004 act and particularly with the proposals for the dispersal of groups. We opposed that power emphatically because it does not provide a solution. It simply moves the problem from area B to area C. It would be better to deal with the difficulty in area B by using existing law than to put the problem on a conveyor belt to end up somewhere else in the community.

If I understood the minister's reply to my intervention, the dispersal power has been used once, so it is clear that not much appetite is felt for it. My experience is that not much appetite is felt for ASBOs for people who are under 16, which is something of a frustration to many of our children's panels.

Unfortunately, many of the difficulties about which we warned are coming to pass. There is no doubt that the Executive saw the 2004 act as its big solution, but without an adequate enforcement regime, the act is as helpful as a chocolate teapot. All the laws that the Executive can dream up are useless without a proper enforcement regime, which—unfortunately—is missing.

It is disturbing that three in every four crimes are not reported to the police. I suggest that many such crimes involve antisocial behaviour. How can the Executive claim to be making progress on the issue when members of the public have so little confidence that they do not even bother to report crimes?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Miss Goldie correct the impression that is created by the way in which her amendment is phrased? The amendment seems to indicate that she lacks confidence in the police. Is that what she means to say?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have no intention whatsoever of expressing a lack of confidence in the police—indeed, we have a policy that would produce another 1,500 police officers. We also desire improved accountability. Our policies show that we do not lack confidence in the police—we are simply articulating the universal concern that communities throughout Scotland have expressed.

The minister referred to having more police. I would be interested to hear how many more police there should be, as it seems that we are not succeeding in establishing acceptable visible policing in our communities. However, zero-tolerance policing has a proven track record, as I have illustrated many times previously.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

What Annabel Goldie has just said and the reference in her amendment to zero-tolerance policing indicate that she does not believe that it is right for chief constables to have operational responsibility. If the Conservative party ever gained power—I am talking about in a fantasy land—would she tell chief constables exactly how they should operate?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No. We have made it clear that that would not be the impact of our proposal for an elected police convener. By contrast, we have said that we would be happy for police boards to continue to have councillors on them, but the time has come for the public in a police board locality to have an opportunity to elect a convener who will say that they will drive forward a strategic plan for the area while operational decisions will be left to serving police officers.

Zero-tolerance policing works. I have referred to the experience in New York, but there has also been success in Broomhouse in Edinburgh. Police officers may deter and detect crime, but it is equally important that an increased police presence will re-engage with communities and the law-abiding majority. It is time that someone spoke up for the law-abiding majority, whose confidence has been dented. With that confidence at such a low ebb, we must surely be mindful of what we should do to restore it and put our justice system back in the premier position in which it ought to be.

Increasing the visibility of the police in our communities is necessary, but that will only treat the symptoms of antisocial behaviour. Mr MacAskill borrowed Mr Blair's phrase, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and it is undoubtedly true that the increasing problem of family breakdowns must be addressed. From a Civitas study, we know about the disturbing pattern of a major contributor towards antisocial behaviour being children living without their father. The research data that was produced apparently shows—sadly—that such children are more likely to do less well at school and are more likely to smoke, take drugs and engage in criminal activity.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That is outrageous.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I merely repeat what the study disclosed. The minister may not care for the disclosure, but he can check the research himself.

At his first press conference following re-election, Mr Blair said that he could bring in new laws, but that he could not

"raise someone's children for them."

I applaud the Prime Minister for having the courage to recognise the Government's limits in that field. I realise that it is not only young people who engage in antisocial behaviour, but if we are to make headway in solving the problem, we need to consider our children and help them to regain self-esteem, self-respect and respect for others. That task cannot fall to the state—it is the responsibility of parents. In many cases, the problem will—sadly—start with the parents. Their difficulties, anxieties and emotional turbulence will affect their children as sure as night follows day. There can be earlier intervention to identify parents who may be struggling to cope and whose children are therefore most at risk of becoming involved in crime.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I hope that the minister will forgive me for not doing so, as I am in my final minute.

It seems to me that the approach that has been adopted in the United States has been successful. Of course, it has been largely undertaken by the voluntary sector, whose innovation and flexibility is valuable. I suggest that we must work more with the voluntary sector in Scotland.

There is no magic legislative sticking plaster that can whisk away the problems of antisocial behaviour in our communities, but a greatly improved and more accountable enforcement regime—and more police on our streets—would make headway. The Executive's motion slightly misses the point at this juncture.

I move amendment S2M-2893.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"notes with regret that the Scottish Crime Survey indicated that three out of every four crimes are never reported to the police, indicating a lack of confidence from the public; notes the commencement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 but, in doing so, recognises that, without an adequate enforcement regime, measures included within the Act cannot work; ultimately believes that only when there is a greatly increased police presence on our streets, following zero-tolerance policing methods and re-engaging with communities, will we see a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase resources available to the police along with an improving accountability to ensure an improvement in the deterrence and detection of crime."

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

We are again discussing antisocial behaviour when the long nights seem to be bringing problems on to the streets. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, the provisions of which have now been commenced, has rightly been introduced as one measure to ensure that people feel safe in their homes and communities. The Liberal Democrats have always advocated a twin-track approach to tackling antisocial behaviour by supporting more police on the streets and activities to divert our young people away from trouble in the first place.

Petty crime and antisocial behaviour were on the increase and the 2004 act—thanks to Liberal Democrat influence—deals with the causes of antisocial behaviour rather than with simply punishment of the symptoms. The 2004 act is considerably different from the draconian bill that was first introduced. As a result of considered amendments, it offers workable solutions to the problems that many local communities face.

However, we must be honest. It is right to debate the subject, but the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is not the only measure that will cure the problem. Shortly after I was elected back in 2003, the local council, in conjunction with strong community organisations and the police, dealt effectively with antisocial behaviour issues in parts of my area in south Edinburgh. The police set up a strong youth action team with dedicated police officers. They engaged with local children and diverted them away from causing the serious trouble that they used to cause. As a result of the introduction of the youth action team, calls to the police dropped by more than 40 per cent over the summer of 2003. The approach was so successful that the then Deputy Minister for Communities—Mary Mulligan—came to visit, as it was an example of best practice. I think that members of a parliamentary committee also came.

That great work has been extended to other areas of south Edinburgh. The police are organising late-night football competitions in Gracemount and there have been huge improvements in the quality of recreational facilities as a result of the considerable amount of money that the City of Edinburgh Council has made available. There are new all-weather football pitches, basketball courts and playgrounds and calls to the police about antisocial behaviour are now at an all-time low. No area of my constituency is now considered by the council to be a problem and the youth action team strategy is being rolled out across the whole city—I congratulate the City of Edinburgh Council on that. Earlier this week, I spoke to the council's leader, Donald Anderson, and he assured me that the number of teams will be raised from four to six and that the approach is indeed being rolled out throughout Edinburgh. Such things were achieved before the act came into force.

However, in many areas of Scotland, the powers in the 2004 act are needed. For example, the antisocial behaviour strategies that are mentioned in the motion examine more closely the facilities and services that are available to under-16s and adults in an area that could prevent antisocial behaviour. There may also be rare instances in which the dispersal powers that are contained in the act might be used.

I was disappointed by recent comments made by Councillor Sheila Gilmore of the City of Edinburgh Council. She is in charge of tackling antisocial behaviour in the city and she claimed that the police are now frightened of using some of the powers in the new act. That is utter nonsense. Rather than thinking about meddling with operational matters, we must congratulate the police on the job that they are doing. When the bill was being considered at stage 1, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland had serious reservations about dispersal powers. The chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary told ministers:

"ACPOS considers that current police powers are adequate"

and that the proposals for dispersal orders "would not be practical". Surely Councillor Gilmore cannot be surprised if the police do not want to use those powers. Some people would argue that problems are worse in Glasgow—others can decide whether that is correct—but I do not think that Glasgow has used any dispersal orders at all.

I welcome the real difference that police, council officials and local communities are making to antisocial behaviour and I know that the correct tools for each local area will be used to tackle the problems. Acceptable behaviour contracts, restorative justice projects and an expansion of recreational facilities are all part of the approach. Scotland's communities are getting safer—I hope that politicians welcome that and will do their bit to reduce the fear of crime that exists in many areas.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is a pleasure for me to open for Labour in the debate. As the motion recognises, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which was spearheaded by Labour ministers, is already having an impact in tackling the blight of antisocial behaviour and will have an even greater impact in the future.

Tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour has been at the heart of Labour's agenda, as our party is tired of the communities that we represent having their quality of life destroyed by the selfish, antisocial behaviour of a few. We are determined to stand up for the vast majority of people who want to live in safety and peace. That is why, at the last election, Scottish Labour stood on a platform of tackling antisocial behaviour, which was endorsed by the people of Scotland; it is why Labour put that issue at the heart of the partnership agreement; and it is why we should congratulate the Scottish Executive—especially the ministers who ensured that the act was passed—on introducing legislation that is already making a difference.

As someone who represents the north-east, I am keenly aware of people who have had their quality of life improved as a result of the act. I am sure that we will hear from other members how the application of antisocial behaviour orders is making a difference throughout the country, from tackling vandalism to allowing vulnerable older people to live in their homes free from the blight of noisy neighbours. In the north-east, especially, the new law is bringing about change for the better. Local agencies are putting the powers in the act to good use, and others around the country should follow their example. I welcome the fact that the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been granted by the local authority in Aberdeen is among the highest in Scotland—not because the problems that we have in Aberdeen are different from those in any other community in Scotland, but because the council has a long-standing track record of success in implementing ASBOs.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member recognise the fact that the number of ASBOs that are issued is a measure not of success but of failure?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I have addressed that issue. As I said, the problems that we face are no different from those that are faced in other parts of Scotland, and the council has been right to issue those ASBOs. I have met people who have benefited as a result of that; that is evidence of success, not failure.

The council's ability to use the new powers successfully has been enhanced by Executive funding for local authorities to make the new legislation work. Over the next two years, Aberdeen City Council will receive more than £3.5 million, and communities are already benefiting as a result of that. I have met those who have benefited.

It is not only the local authority that is using its new powers; Grampian police have been leading Scotland in tackling antisocial behaviour through the new law. In particular, the residents of Beach Boulevard in Aberdeen—who, for years, have had to put up with noise and nuisance from boy racers who have gathered in their community—have benefited from the new law by the police putting in place a dispersal zone there. That shows that Labour is leading the way in tackling such issues not only nationally, but at local level. It was after local Labour representatives Lewis Macdonald MSP, Frank Doran MP and Councillor Jim Hunter, working together, met the community and the police that the dispersal zone was established.

There have been well-publicised disagreements between me and Mike Rumbles over the issue, and I am aware that his opposition to dispersal zones is shared by some of his Liberal colleagues at Westminster. We have also heard doubts about the policy from Mike Pringle. However, the fact is that the measure that was taken at Beach Boulevard was exactly what the new legislation is for. I also say to Miss Goldie that there is no evidence of the problem moving elsewhere. It is clear that the measure has been a total success.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is a rather startling, paradoxical statement. The power has been used only once, so we do not know how it is operating. The fact is that it is not being used.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

That is a paradoxical statement because the measure is working, as the statistics show. There has been a 53 per cent drop in the number of incidents of antisocial behaviour that are reported to the police in that area in the past three months, which has led the police to extend the duration of the dispersal zone for a further three months. The police think that it is working, and I think that we should take their advice on the issue.

Crucially, local residents who, for far too long, have been disturbed by the activities of the boy racers have said that their community has been transformed for the better as a result. Those who criticise the actions that have been taken by Grampian police should speak to the local residents—who have benefited hugely from those actions—and change their minds. We have heard opposition to the powers from the Opposition parties, but they have clearly been proved wrong. I hope that more police forces in Scotland will follow the excellent example of Grampian police.

Addressing antisocial behaviour is not just about punitive measures; that is why the motion that I lodged earlier this year on antisocial behaviour highlighted the give the Broch a break initiative, of which Stewart Stevenson will be aware. That initiative, which was run by Grampian police, not only tackled vandalism and underage drinking, but organised events that were aimed at providing alternative activities for young people in particular.

The new legislation is being backed up by the Executive with dedicated antisocial behaviour teams and community wardens working in our neighbourhoods alongside extra police officers. There is no excuse for the powers in the act not to be used effectively throughout Scotland to tackle a wide range of antisocial behaviour. Many people—from national groups such as the Scottish Retail Consortium to local communities who believe that the powers could make a difference to their lives—want the powers to be used more often, not less. The north-east is proof that, when the new legislation is used, it is effective in tackling antisocial behaviour and improving people's lives.

That is why Labour led the Parliament in introducing the 2004 act and it is why we are championing it in our communities. In doing that, we can ensure that our communities are better places in which to live.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The debate comes at a time when the activities of young people are in the spotlight once again. Many have condemned young people for the wearing of hooded tops, and some of the comments, quite frankly, have verged on the hysterical.

I agree that it is reasonable that people should remove the hoods of their tops when they are in a shopping centre so that their faces are not obscured, just as it is reasonable for motorcyclists to remove their crash helmets in the same circumstances. That is particularly true when someone enters premises such as a bank, as their appearance can cause alarm even if that is unintended. I used to ride a motorbike, and I found it a nuisance that I had to remove my crash helmet before I popped into my local bank. On colder days, I also had to remove a garment that resembled a ski mask, which I wore below my crash helmet to keep warm. Only once did I forget to take those off before entering my bank, but the look on the face of the nearest teller immediately reminded me that I had just walked into a bank wearing a leather jacket, gloves, a ski mask and a crash helmet. I was doing nothing wrong and I was not acting in a threatening manner, but because of the way in which I was dressed, people around me had a different perspective.

I use that example because, in debates such as this, we must remember that antisocial behaviour is sometimes in the eye of the beholder rather than based on the objective reality. There is no denying that there are people who behave in an appalling manner and cause untold misery to all around them. They should be dealt with, and I welcome the action and the initiatives that are being taken. However, there is a world of difference between behaviour that is criminal, such as vandalism, and groups of youngsters hanging around with their friends. I suspect that there are a few members who thought that they looked great when they met their pals on a Saturday night dressed as new romantics, punks, hippies, mods, rockers—or perhaps even teds, depending on their age. Groups of youngsters who are dressed in the fashion of the day have always seemed alarming to older generations: that is in the nature of the difference between the generations. When we are older, we forget what we were like when we were 15, and that allows us to find it intimidating to see groups of people who are dressed in what appears to be a peculiar manner hanging around together.

It may seem obvious to say that we should reward good behaviour rather than reinforce bad behaviour, but if the current rash of television programmes that deal with the disruptive behaviour of children are to be believed, many people have forgotten or have never learned that simple fact. If we ignore our children when they are good, they will never learn that their good behaviour is noticed and appreciated. It sometimes feels as though the Executive has forgotten that simple lesson in basic psychology. We should reinforce the behaviour that we want by paying it attention instead of reinforcing the behaviour that we want to discourage by focusing on it most of the time. If we do the latter, the result is a downward spiral of criticism, punishment and criminalisation when, in fact, we should separate out the good from the bad, then reward the good behaviour and punish the bad.

We seem to be concentrating on highlighting the bad behaviour while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. Diversionary schemes for those who have been involved in antisocial behaviour are welcome, but what about extra-curricular activities for those who behave themselves? We have all heard about schemes for kids who steal cars, which teach them about car mechanics and give them off-road driving lessons. I am not knocking such schemes, but what about the kids who do not steal cars? Do they not deserve to have their good behaviour acknowledged?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Significant additional resources have been put in through, for example, community safety partnerships to make activities available to a wider range of young people, especially during school holiday periods. Does the member accept that the type of activity that he suggests is being funded by the Executive?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am not knocking what the Executive is doing by funding such schemes; I am pointing out that we tend to concentrate on the bad behaviour of young people without rewarding good behaviour. Given the problem that is created by the loss of sports fields and playing fields for young people in every community across the country, it is not reasonable to suggest that everything in the garden is rosy and that all our investment is creating a situation in which young people are happy and content with the facilities that are available to them.

It is little wonder that many people—not just the young—feel aggrieved at the concentration of effort on those who misbehave. It is all very well to criminalise those who behave in a criminal manner, but perhaps we need to identify which youngsters are the real troublemakers and which are just hanging around on the periphery.

It seems to me that, in any setting, people in a group often fall into three basic categories: those who will cause trouble no matter what; those who will not cause any problems; and those who, falling somewhere in the middle, will lean towards one or the other mode of behaviour depending on the prevailing circumstances. The trick is to ensure that those in the middle lean towards not causing problems. If we can achieve that, the vast majority in any group will not cause a problem. I believe that, if we rewarded good behaviour so that young people got the chance to try out new things or to spend their time in positive extra-curricular activities, the group in the middle would lean towards that type of unproblematic behaviour. That would lessen the problems that many communities face and allow the police to concentrate on their prime activity of catching criminals and dealing with criminality. The police would then be able to focus their resources on those who will cause trouble no matter what, rather than act as street-level social workers or youth workers.

That is why we need to invest in making clubs and sports facilities available locally and affordable for young people. Perhaps most important of all, we need to ensure that we give young people hope that they will have a job with some prospects, so that they can look forward to the future with keen anticipation. The consequences of our failing to do that are too grim to imagine.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Never has legislation been more welcomed by individuals and communities than the act that the Parliament passed to combat antisocial behaviour. Being an elected member is perhaps the only job in which one has the opportunity to gauge the blight that has been caused in the lives of those many constituents who, sometimes for many years, have been on the receiving end of relentless antisocial behaviour. My constituents who are victims of antisocial behaviour are no different from those of other members; to varying extents, they have suffered from those who do not give a jot about how their behaviour impacts on the lives of others.

I do not accept that all who display antisocial behaviour should be made subject to an antisocial behaviour order. In my view, such orders are a last resort that should be used when all else fails. I hope that, when the minister reviews local authorities' progress on the issue, she will take account of the use of alternatives when she determines local authorities' success in combating antisocial behaviour. The strategies that have been developed by the partners in each local authority area contain various remedies. In my area, those alternatives also have community input and community support. The options that are available are working, because they allow police, social work, education and housing authorities to work with and support those who are affected by antisocial behaviour in finding a remedy—which sometimes might involve the assistance of health professionals—in order to bring peace to the community.

During its passage through the Parliament, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill attracted much criticism—we have heard it again this morning—because of the perception that the bill would target all young people. To my knowledge, no antisocial behaviour reports have been pursued against young people in my constituency who are under the age of 15. The vast majority of such reports have been against adults. Those reports have been a wake-up call, in particular to those owner-occupiers who believed that they could do as they pleased because they were not answerable to any landlord.

Forgive me for giving an example, but one owner-occupier in my constituency regularly came home under the influence and played loud music in a way that disturbed the lives of the neighbours and occasionally frightened their children, who would awake with a start because of the loud music. A neighbour decided that enough was enough and called the police. On their arrival, the police could not get an answer at the door because the music was so loud. When they eventually gained entry and the music was turned off, one would have thought that there would be peace at last, but that was not the case. The inebriated owner-occupier decided that the neighbour had no right to complain—he thought that he should be able to do as he wanted—so he proceeded to challenge the complainant. Fortunately, the police, who were aware that that might occur, had not left the area and were able to defuse the situation quickly. The police advised the neighbours in the street to contact East Ayrshire Council's antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, thereby demonstrating the partnership approach.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Let me finish.

The neighbours who were affected gave evidence in their own homes to the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator. Thanks to that evidence and the evidence that was produced by the police, the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator was able to issue a warning letter to the owner-occupier. Not only did that owner-occupier's behaviour change, but others in the area sat up and took notice of the fact that they can now be held to account for their behaviour.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Mrs Jamieson agree that the man's behaviour might have been modified much earlier if the police had acted appropriately by charging him with breach of the peace and dealing with him in court? That would have cut out a lot of delay and additional hassle for the neighbours, whose complaints were totally justified.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I find it extremely difficult to answer Bill Aitken's question because a report on the individual had already been sent to the procurator fiscal before the antisocial behaviour co-ordinator got involved. We may well need to return to that issue.

I will use that same example when I have a meeting in the constituency with a housing association that is not pursuing antisocial behaviour as vigorously as it has the powers to do. The housing association believes that the costs of pursuing such matters are beyond its means, despite the moneys that have been allocated by the Executive. In its view, such actions are not within its remit and are solely a matter for the police. I ask the minister to consider making a regulation to force such housing associations to exercise their powers and thereby to protect their tenants and communities.

No individual, family or community need suffer antisocial behaviour, as they now have a remedy that the Parliament should be proud of introducing. On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the success of the legislation to date. I share their confidence that it will help to build a better and safer community for all in the future.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Executive motion states:

"That the Parliament believes that people in all parts of Scotland should be able to live free from fear and harassment".

If Cathy Jamieson is looking for a fight on that issue, it is clear that she will not get it. However, she may well find that the Parliament is a bit more sceptical about her need to persuade people of the existence of a problem that is manifest in the streets and recreational areas and on public transport in many of our towns and cities. Basically, the Executive was forced to do something and its response was the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. I remind Hugh Henry, yet again, that at the end of the day we supported the 2004 act absolutely, despite having reservations about significant sections of it.

The response that is contained in the legislation has been summarised today by the Minister for Justice, who claimed certain successes. After such a brief period, it is naive, to say the least, that the legislation can be seen as a success. I accept that, after such a brief period, it would be unfair for me to claim that it is a failure but let us consider what has happened since the legislation was enacted. There have been four closure orders. The type of closure order that I have seen reported by the police related to cases in which conduct on premises was such that there were frequent disturbances and breaches of the peace. Why were the people involved not acted against and dealt with by the courts?

There have been 10 antisocial behaviour orders. I accept that such orders are a tool that can be used in the fight against antisocial behaviour. However, I was somewhat disappointed to see that, in one case at Linlithgow sheriff court, a custodial sentence was imposed only after an antisocial behaviour order had been breached three times. For the sort of people with whom we are dealing, ASBOs are not likely to be a significant deterrent.

There are also seizure orders. To some extent, those could be used to deal with the boy racers in Aberdeen, but I must ask what Grampian police were doing about the problem before it became so serious. Would not their traffic department have spent some time looking at precisely what was happening? The problem could have been removed without resort to the 2004 act.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does Bill Aitken recognise that often orders to seize vehicles, such as those that were made in Fife, come only after other measures have been tried? Police in Fife had warned the young man whose vehicle they seized last week on at least one, if not two, previous occasions.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Christine May has an advantage over me, as I do not know about the Fife case. However, it is apparent that in the Grampian and Aberdeen area no such measures were used before a seizure order was made.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that the order was made to deal not with traffic offences, but with boy racers gathering in the community and creating nuisance while they were gathered?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

They were making a lot of noise and disturbing local residents. By any standard, that is a breach of the peace. Why was action not taken?

The minister tells us that a number of fixed penalties have been issued. She did not tell us whether any of them had been paid, or how many had been paid. She made the constructive comment that wardens have a role to play, but they are certainly not a replacement for police. She mentioned the involvement of the Scottish Retail Consortium. When I speak to people from the retail trade, they complain about the cost of securing their premises, which is necessary because insufficient police are around, and about the number of people who reoffend while on bail.

As I have said before in the chamber, there are two factors that govern human behaviour. One is the certainty of discovery, and the other is adequate punishment. There are more police officers in post, but they are not where they should be—out on the streets. We must examine our court system, to see how it could be made more effective in dealing with minor offending. Having seen the United States system in operation, I am very attracted by what happens there. I know that the minister has visited a community court in New York, and I think that she agrees that we could consider that experiment and that we may be able to emulate it in certain respects. However, if we are to implement the model, we will need to re-examine our procedures and the way in which we are hide-bound by European regulations.

Although the problems are not caused exclusively by young people—far from it—the existing children's hearings system is not coping with them. That issue must be considered. Of most concern is the fact that, despite long and weary debate about antisocial behaviour in the chamber, the Executive refuses to recognise that there must be a toughening-up of attitudes to disposals for offences of disorder. We must ensure that fines are paid, because they are not being paid at the moment. We must ensure that community service is done, which is often not happening at the moment. We cannot allow the farce of early release, regardless of whether the individual concerned has behaved himself, to reduce the deterrent impact of custodial sentences.

We accept that it is still early days for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. However, to suggest that the act is a great panacea, as a number of Labour members have done, is naive beyond belief.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I lost count of the number of times during the passage of what is now the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 that those of us who advocated a different approach were accused directly of wanting not to address the problem, of wanting to ignore it and of wanting not even to acknowledge that it exists. As I have done in other debates on antisocial behaviour, I begin by saying clearly that antisocial behaviour is a problem that has a profound impact and that something must be done about it. However, all along I and many organisations that gave evidence to the Communities Committee during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill have argued that there has been too much emphasis on enforcement—I am not saying that enforcement is never necessary—and not enough emphasis on positive interventions that can change behaviour in a more constructive way.

A revival of youth work in Scotland is long overdue. Much can be achieved by working constructively with young people from an early age to engage with their attitudes and values. People who talk about respect must accept that it cannot be enforced, but can be learned. We should have examined the children's hearings system, which Bill Aitken mentioned. The system faces many problems that must be addressed to ensure that it is more effective. If measures had been taken in those areas—even if there had been political weight behind them—all of us would have been willing to consider what further enforcement powers were necessary. However, the Executive's whole approach has been the other way round. The focus on enforcement fails to address the causes of behaviour and therefore risks displacing it—moving it around—or even compounding it.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Is Patrick Harvie not falling into the trap of characterising antisocial behaviour as a problem that is associated simply with young people? Is that not completely wrong, given the facts of the matter? Much antisocial behaviour is not caused by young people.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I made that point many times during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. However, there can be no doubt that the passage of the bill and the debate that accompanied it increased the perception that young people are the problem, not the solution.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The member is fuelling that perception.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am not. Will the member explain how I am fuelling it?

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Patrick Harvie is going on about young people and the work that needs to be done with them. I do not dispute that that is necessary in some areas. However, it is wrong to characterise young people as the only individuals who cause antisocial behaviour.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I agree entirely that that is wrong and I challenged the perception in committee during stage 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.

During the passage of the bill, the Executive called time and again for there to be more tools in the box. I argued then and repeat now that some of those tools are blunt instruments. I did not support their creation and I will not support a motion that calls for their use. I want to consider two examples of enforcement as they have played out south of the border—in England and Wales—and to talk about how that resonates with what is happening in Scotland.

Child curfew zones are not exactly the same as the dispersal measures that have been designed here, but they are similar in one respect—they deal with the presence of people, rather than people's behaviour. Richard Baker said that the behaviour of those whom he called boy racers was the problem. However, the legislation deals with presence.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will take one more intervention.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Again, it is not a case of targeting young people—the boy racers are over 35.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I think that I have dealt with that point. The focus on people's presence can result in innocent people—such as the 15-year-old whose case was taken on by Liberty south of the border—being dealt with by the same measures.

A second example—Stewart Maxwell referred to this—is the new concept of antisocial clothing. Mr Blair and Mr Prescott have both given their backing to the Bluewater shopping centre's ban on hooded tops and baseball caps. Again, the focus is not on behaviour, but on stereotypes. Mr Blair and Mr Prescott are talking about bans and restricting people's personal liberties. That is the end result of the agenda that is being pursued through this legislation.

How will the Executive respond when such measures are tried in Scotland, as is beginning to happen? This is not just about how to police bad behaviour; it is about the nature of public space and our rights to use it, which are compromised when public space is replaced by private premises. It is no coincidence, and entirely understandable, that a shopping centre—a private business—recognises that young people spend less money and more time hanging around, which they should have the right to do in public places, and sees such people as a problem. If attempts are made in Scotland to place restrictions on the rights of people to dress as they like, without regard to their behaviour, what will the minister do?

The Executive has made laudable efforts to involve young people in political change and to become aware of their power to be the change in relation to global issues. Why can we not involve young people more in the local issues of antisocial behaviour that affect them as well as everyone else in society? What are local authorities doing to involve young people and to ensure that their voices are heard? Respect is a two-way street; we must give it to people and not simply demand it from them.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I was content to support the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill in the full knowledge that the provisions contained therein did not represent any kind of panacea, pace Bill Aitken; the bill was only one part of the Executive's wider package of reforms. Nonetheless, the measures are important and are beginning to play a significant role in the creation of communities free from fear and harassment.

Members will recall that the debate that took place during the passage of the bill was sometimes so heated that common sense seemed to have deserted some Opposition members. Colin Fox, whose speech will follow mine today, is a sober-sided and assiduous colleague on the Justice 2 Committee, but I recall him beginning his contribution to the debate on 2 October 2003 with the immortal lines:

"I know that Labour members are anxious. They have the smell of blood in their nostrils and want to get on to punishment, punishment, punishment."—[Official Report, 2 October 2003; c 2299.]

Wow. That was so melodramatic that it was almost Grand Guignol. The characterisation of Labour members' motives was reasonably entertaining at the time, but it bore absolutely no relation to the actual driving force behind the legislation, which came from the communities that we all seek to represent. Antisocial behaviour was and still is perceived to be a major issue for many communities in Glasgow and throughout Scotland.

Too many people have to live with the results of antisocial behaviour. The provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 were designed expressly to tackle the behaviour of a small minority of people of all ages—I say that to Mr Harvie—and from all backgrounds that can and does make the daily lives of a significant percentage of Scotland's citizens a misery.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I will in a second. No responsible Government could ignore or simply refuse to accept that fact. When the Labour-led Executive took action, it was correct to do so.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No one was proposing that we should ignore that fact. The main point of my speech was that people of all ages can be guilty of antisocial behaviour. Does the member acknowledge that, although the act focused disproportionately on young people and the debate about it gave rise to a perception that has resulted in discrimination against young people, the problem remains with all age groups?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I agree with the last clause of Mr Harvie's assertion, but the notion that the legislation is disproportionate is of his own making and relates in no way to the act that the Parliament passed. I inform him that Government strategy to combat antisocial behaviour is not based on an unthinking, disproportionate, draconian approach. On the contrary, the coalition's aim is to attempt to change people's behaviour and not simply to deal with the results of antisocial activities; it is about communities developing solutions to their problems.

I will give a few examples of that co-operative, inclusive approach, as outlined in Glasgow's antisocial behaviour strategy, which represents local government acting in concert with the Executive. A citywide group has been formed and given the responsibility to develop and implement the strategy. Because there is a recognition that antisocial behaviour is a multifaceted problem, the strategy is only one element among many in the delivery of a partnership approach to tackle the problems that contribute to antisocial behaviour. Central to that approach is a recognition of the vital role that local communities play both in the action required and the commitment needed to give the strategy the best chance of success.

In my Glasgow Anniesland constituency, the Drumchapel community safety forum, which is charged with the local development of the citywide approach, has been at the heart of a number of positive initiatives. For example, it has organised an antisocial behaviour focus group, including police and housing providers, which has established an information-sharing protocol allowing gaps in service provision to be identified and addressed. The group has representatives from local housing organisations in Drumchapel and Blairdardie as well as the community safety patrol officers, local elected members and Streetwatch Glasgow.

The forum's activities include making local people aware of the support and assistance that is available to them. Stewart Maxwell asked for examples of positive extra-curricular activities. I will give him a particularly successful one: the forum organises sports activities for local young people on Thursday and Friday evenings in the Donald Dewar leisure centre in my constituency. Indeed, more than 120 young people regularly attend on Friday evenings. They are able to make use of the centre's facilities and access advice and information about a range of community safety issues. I am pleased to report that that commendable service for local young people picked up the Glasgow City Council award for the most innovative project in 2005.

Those examples of one forum's work in my constituency point the way forward to create a successful antisocial behaviour strategy that seeks to involve and not to demonise or ostracise. That approach is preventive, not punitive. It seeks to hand control back to communities and not to exert centralised control over them. It encourages co-operation, not confrontation.

I believe that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is, alongside the other Government measures, just beginning to make a positive difference to the everyday lives of my constituents and the people whom we all seek to represent throughout Scotland. On that basis, it is to be commended.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Unfortunately, I cannot find a quotation from Bill Butler or any of the Labour members showing the extravagant claims that they made last year about the bill. However, I sense in Labour members' speeches the frustration that they clearly feel that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 has not lived up to its billing. That sense of frustration is also clear in the minister's motion.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I will let the member intervene in a minute.

The motion rightly talks about the right of people in Scotland

"to live free from fear and harassment".

I agree that people in Scotland are entitled to that and I hope that nobody in the Parliament would dissent from that view. People in Scotland also have the right to live free from the fear of poverty, unemployment, exploitation at work, the cold in winter and poor health, but the Executive appears to be far less interested in addressing those fears.

The motion invites us to debate the effectiveness of the act. The act's effectiveness is questionable and it is right that we should remind the minister that, when the Parliament was discussing the legislation, many members had concerns about the proposals, on the ground that there are better ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. The best way of tackling antisocial behaviour is by empowering communities and by providing resources and facilities for community support services to help people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. We need effective interventions to address the problem via fully resourced social work and community services. We could even increase the number of police officers who work in and are accountable to the communities concerned. Such avenues were obvious to the Executive, but it chose to ignore the funding demands arising from tried and tested methods of addressing the problem.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Colin Fox thinks deeply on the issues that we are considering, so I am astonished to hear him say that we have ignored funding and resources. Does he accept that the £113 million that has been allocated to back up antisocial behaviour strategies is additional to the £10 million that is available to community safety partnerships to support the voluntary sector organisations that deliver for young people and the £63 million or so that has been put into youth justice programmes? Does he accept that a significant amount of money has been allocated precisely to take the action that is needed to tackle the causes and the symptoms of the problem?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The minister mentioned the £113 million for ASBOs when she intervened during an earlier speech. I will talk about funding later.

It is clear that the Executive is annoyed that, a year after the 2004 act was passed, local authorities are not using the range of powers in relation to which the £113 million was allocated. That is because local authorities throughout Scotland prefer to use more effective ways of dealing with the problems that communities face.

I do not know whether the minister has seen the Labour Research Department's recent publication—Labour members used to read those documents and I hope that they still do. The experience in England and Wales, where antisocial behaviour legislation has been in force for longer than it has been in Scotland, indicates that ASBOs are criminalising people for non-criminal behaviour, which is precisely what the advocates of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill said would not happen. New figures for Scotland indicate that the time served in custody by children has more than doubled, from 300 days in 2003 to more than 800 days. The average time spent inside by children under 16 has increased from nine days to 28 days. I accept that that is partly because there is a severe shortage of secure units, but the situation is hardly likely to improve if ASBOs are more widely imposed on under-16s.

The motion acknowledges the need to

"build confidence in our communities"

throughout Scotland. It is perfectly clear that we can do that by supporting measures that we know will make a difference. Patrick Harvie was quite right to highlight issues about youth projects. How many youth projects, sports and leisure centres and playing fields have closed in the year since the bill was passed? I visited a highly valued and effective youth project in West Lothian last week, but there are anxieties about whether funding for that project will continue. The minister talks about spending £113 million, but funding such youth projects would constitute effective intervention to deal with the problem.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I support community development and the important work that is being done with young people. However, does the member realise that the majority of people who cause disruption in my constituency are older folk who get drunk all weekend and try to beat up their neighbours, who have to phone the police to complain? People should not have to live like that. We are not just talking about youngsters.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Cathy Peattie is right. The vast majority of ASBOs are granted in relation to older people. However, provisions in the 2004 act specifically targeted young people and Labour members should not be allowed to sweep that fact under the carpet.

The minister urges local authorities to use ASBOs and even talks about taking away £64 million of funding if they refuse to do so. A paper from Heriot-Watt University contains figures that make it clear that local authorities in Scotland have largely given what we might call the rubber ear to the proposals. It is clear that local authorities do not want or need the powers in the 2004 act. They regard the act's approach as bureaucratic and cumbersome and they think that there are better ways of dealing with the problem.

The message from local authorities is loud and clear. In 21 local authority areas, specialist teams have been established to deal with antisocial behaviour. I welcome the use of investigating officers, community safety officers and social protection teams, but it is clear that the 10 local authorities that have the lowest number of ASBO applications all use specialist teams. The wide variation in the use of ASBOs among local authorities suggests that a political imperative is at play.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Executive's March 2005 social research paper, "Use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders in Scotland", to which Colin Fox referred, makes interesting reading. It confirms that there are huge discrepancies in take-up among local authority areas in Scotland, which are linked not to the prevalence of antisocial behaviour but to a number of other factors, including the different speeds at which local authorities and registered social landlords have geared up to use the powers in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The fact that responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour has been located in housing departments has also skewed applications.

One element is missing from the statistics in the paper. They do not identify local authorities that decided not to use the powers or that decided to drag their feet on the matter. The paper highlights Glasgow as an area that has a relatively low level of applications for ASBOs, but Inverclyde Council sticks out like a sore thumb: there were no applications in the area in 2002-03 and there was just one application in 2003-04, although surely there are instances of antisocial behaviour in the area that need to be addressed.

We have been told and we will be told again that local authorities are required to prepare with chief constables a strategy for dealing with antisocial behaviour, which will help to form the basis of outcome agreements for funding. The denial or reduction of funding for local authorities that drag their feet will not provide one iota of help to the ordinary men and women who are being denied the benefits that the granting of an ASBO can bring in certain situations. At question time last week, I asked what remedies are proposed for citizens who live in areas in which the local authority is failing properly to address antisocial behaviour. Unfortunately, the Deputy Minister for Justice chose to interpret my question as a request for direct control over the actions of local authorities. His interpretation was wrong and my question remains: what remedy do those people have?

The social research paper suggests that as many as two thirds of ASBOs have been breached. We need answers on that. What is the breach rate and what is the response to breaches?

A number of members talked about antisocial behaviour and young people. We must consider whether the current approach strikes the right balance. I will leave aside the headline-grabbing, tough soundbites about neds and hoodies and consider the hard statistics. Young people are more often the victims than the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Parliament information centre produced a paper in September 2003 describing the findings of the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime. According to the SPICe paper, the study identified a close link between victimisation and offending and concluded:

"Being a victim of crime at the age of 12 is one of the most powerful indicators that a child will offend at 15. Likewise, offending at age 12 brings a strong possibility of victimisation at 15."

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

In the context of the member's comments, does he agree that it is important that we send the message to all agencies that simply to have a blanket ruling out of the use of powers in the 2004 act would fail the young people who risk becoming the victims of crime?

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I agree—perhaps the minister can convey that to her deputy minister.

The study went on to say:

"there is a close correlation between levels of parental supervision and offending".

However, it also said:

"The strongest correlation is between the numbers of friends of an individual young offender who are offenders ... and the individual's own offending."

The Scottish Executive's consultation paper in 2003 stated:

"a particularly worrying development in recent years is the number of children and young people who are involved in persistent crime and anti-social behaviour. While it is a small proportion of the total, this group put other children in the community at risk of getting involved in anti-social behaviour and are responsible for untold damage and misery."

The case for isolating the hard-core minority has been made over and over again, but, in taking that action, we must provide an alternative focus for those who hang around that minority and who are at risk of being sucked into problems and trouble. If we accept that the state has a duty to intervene, we must recognise how much better it is to intervene positively by helping those in our society who struggle to provide alternatives and who give up their own time to help to run voluntary groups than it is to intervene by clearing up the mess of failure. The requirement for an ASBO is a measure of our failure, not our success.

As some members will know, I recently brought a debate to the chamber on Renfrew and Inverclyde scout association. I do not have time to go through all the arguments again, but despite the warm words of support, encouraging letters and glossy brochures from the Executive, the association has received not one brown penny from the Executive for the Lapwing Lodge project and it is not alone in that. Why do we continue to force our voluntary organisations to jump through hoops to obtain even the smallest grants, whether at Scottish Executive or local authority level? Why are well-established organisations left to wither on the funding vine, watching shiny new projects being launched in a blaze of publicity, only to see them close a few years later when the prospect of mainstream funding disappears? When will the Executive learn that short-term media hits and photo opportunities are just that?

By all means let us monitor the use of antisocial behaviour orders and see where they can be improved, but in doing so let us recognise that, if we fail to fund the positive, we will continue to pay the price of failure, which is a much higher bill.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to examine the initial impact of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. I will focus on the act's impact on my local authority area of North Lanarkshire and in particular on the impact of ASBOs and interim ASBOs in challenging and ultimately changing antisocial behaviour.

The communities that I represent were crying out for measures to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour, against which ASBOs are an important tool. The vast majority of decent people in our communities are sick and tired of the destruction and mayhem that is caused by a small minority of people who seem to be oblivious to the impact of their behaviour. Admittedly, ASBOs, as reformed under the 2004 act, are not the only way in which we can challenge and change antisocial behaviour, but they can play a vital part in protecting the quality of life of many ordinary men, women and children in Scotland.

The act provides that

"a person engages in antisocial behaviour if he—

(a) acts in a manner that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress; or

(b) pursues a course of conduct that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress,

to at least one person who is not of the same household as him."

In practice, that includes a wide range of behaviour, such as verbal abuse, excessive noise, drunken and loutish conduct, graffiti writing and intimidation. The definition is wide, but flexibility is needed to protect people from the many forms that antisocial behaviour takes.

ASBOs were not introduced as a substitute for the criminal law or civil proceedings; they were introduced to help local authorities to protect people within their areas. ASBOs are often characterised as tools to deal with serious neighbour disputes in which mediation and other approaches have not worked. It is important to recognise that ASBOs are available to deal with antisocial behaviour wherever it occurs.

Antisocial behaviour often has the greatest impact on people when it affects their home life, so it is understandable that ASBOs have been seen by some as a housing management tool. However, they are not restricted to dealing with neighbour problems or antisocial behaviour in a particular housing sector. They can, for example, be used to deal with antisocial conduct in and around retail premises or in parks or transport hubs. In North Lanarkshire, that message is finally getting through. In Airdrie, three ASBOs have been granted to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour in and around the town centre and those orders are working.

I recently spoke to Matt Costello, who heads up the antisocial task force that is located in North Lanarkshire's housing department. He was positive about the improvements that have been made to full and interim ASBOs and stated that, in North Lanarkshire, 122 ASBOs and interim ASBOs have been granted to date. Interestingly, he told me that between 80 and 85 per cent of ASBOs that are granted are successful, in that they alter antisocial behaviour and the ASBO is never breached. That is an important point.

Colin Fox raised concerns that ASBOs could too easily criminalise people, but that is not shown by the evidence from North Lanarkshire—in fact, quite the opposite. Properly used ASBOs have demonstrated clearly to those who engage in antisocial behaviour that communities and local authorities will not tolerate their behaviour. The challenge of being subject to an ASBO has successfully changed their behaviour.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Can the member explain why North Lanarkshire Council has applied for 122 ASBOs and interim ASBOs when adjacent authorities and authorities with the same socioeconomic problems have applied for virtually nil? Why is there such a huge disparity between North Lanarkshire and other authorities?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is not for me to speak for other local authority areas, but I know that North Lanarkshire is committed to dealing with antisocial behaviour. The council knows that its communities care about antisocial behaviour and it wants to demonstrate that it will tackle it. It is using the powers that are available. Other local authorities have to face up to the same challenges, adopt the targets that North Lanarkshire has set and follow its good practice.

Matt Costello told me that the remaining 15 to 20 per cent of people who do not alter their behaviour are more efficiently and speedily dealt with by the courts. He also stated that the use of short Scottish secure tenancies has an effect on antisocial behaviour similar to the effect of ASBOs. Increased funding from the Scottish Executive has meant that the service provided by the antisocial task force has been expanded. It now employs additional people and provides more resources to communities. In addition, Strathclyde police have seconded one of their officers to work with the task force on a daily basis.

Members of the task force will be taking their examples of good practice to Belfast and will provide training to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. They will be joined by local tenants and community groups to display the benefits that a good and effective antisocial behaviour task force can deliver and the difference that it can make to communities.

It is too early to assess the impact of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and other important Executive initiatives to combat antisocial behaviour, such as neighbourhood wardens, but the early signs from North Lanarkshire are positive. The balance is beginning to move towards protecting the right of the vast majority of people to a peaceful and fearless existence. I welcome the progress that the Executive has made. I urge the minister to continue to fight for the decent people who live in our communities. As Patrick Harvie said, respect is a two-way street. It is time that we gave respect to the vast majority of decent, hard-working families in Scotland.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is a promising piece of legislation that I fully support. Nevertheless, I realise that, as Bill Butler said, it is not a panacea, and it is still in its infancy.

Like MSPs throughout the chamber, constituents regularly raise the topic of antisocial behaviour in their correspondence with me. This morning I received yet another letter in a similar vein, from which I will quote. It said:

"Dear Mr Swinburne,

The situation is that my mother, in her late seventies, has been living in fear and misery for the past three to four years because of a very unsociable neighbour who has had an A.S.B.O. in place against him since May 2004. This, however, although improving the situation a little bit has not prevented him from breaking the order many times.

The worrying thing is that when brought to court for each offence, he gets off with it (because he just tells a pack of lies in court) and then laughs in my mother's face - which as you can imagine, is very distressing for her.

I thought that with the great publicity and high profile given to Anti Social Behaviour Orders in Scotland this would end my mother's misery, but in this case it does not seem to be a deterrent.

I would greatly appreciate it if we could arrange an appointment with you to discuss the matter further."

How would the minister advise the gentleman in that sad case? Would she or her deputy be prepared to sit in on the meeting with him and his mother to try to solve the problem, because I do not have the answer?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

First, I condemn the comments made by Annabel Goldie, which generalised some of the antisocial activity of young people as being down to their not having a father. My father's father was a merchant seaman, so he was an absent father. Previous generations of war widows brought up their children in the most difficult of circumstances. Some of the most hard-working individuals I have ever met are single mothers who have put their children through university. To generalise the reasons for antisocial behaviour is typical of the views of some of the chattering classes.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I do not dispute for a minute what the member says, but does he accept that Miss Goldie was referring to certain statistics and research that showed that there was sometimes a problem with the children of single parents and the incidence of crime?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Individuals who seek to involve themselves in those statistics should get themselves into the real world of the hard-working individuals out there and the difficult circumstances that they face.

I commend the minister for delivering the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The Labour-led Executive has delivered legislation that will make a genuine difference to communities throughout Scotland. There are two main areas of enforcement of the legislation that I think require attention. One of them is youth services, to which Patrick Harvie referred and to which I will return.

However, I turn first to the police authorities and how they enforce the act. The minister and the deputy minister will know that on a number of occasions I have raised the issue of policing and the need to review how we deliver our police services. I believe that there is a need to modernise the way in which our police forces are mobilised and structured. I have been an elected representative for 11 years and the very same policing issues that were raised with me on 17 December 1993 were raised with me last night at a public meeting—issues relating to the deployment of police services. I do not think that our police forces have moved on in the new era of closed-circuit television systems and the internet. We need to consider how we modernise the approach that our police authorities take to delivering services to deal with many of the antisocial activities that have been mentioned.

There are a number of measures that do not require additional resources. We are obsessed with increasing the number of police officers, but that will not necessarily make a difference to my constituents who call the police office only to be treated in the most appalling manner when they report incidents in their community, a number of which are not followed through effectively. I have dealt with a number of individuals over the phone who have been dealt with in an appalling manner.

Problem solving saves police resources, but I do not see enough evidence that our police forces are considering ways in which they can solve problems. It would not require additional resources to ensure that there was stability in the police force, rather than the constant turnover of senior police officers.

Our obsession with police numbers is a red herring. We have to deploy our police resources in the areas where they are needed most. That might mean that the leafy suburbs do not get the same number of police officers as do areas such as Ruchazie in my constituency. We will have to review the way in which our police resources are deployed.

I turn to youth services. It is important to acknowledge that an element of the act was to ensure that we dealt with youth disorder. Parental accountability is an important issue. Too often I attend public meetings at which it is clear that parents believe that it is our role as politicians to deliver local youth services. I see a role for parents in that process. People do not have a God-given right to be a parent; parents have to play a role in partnership with communities in delivering services for their children.

We will have to improve the youth services that we deliver and acknowledge that although many of our services are of the highest standard, they are not being promoted in the way that they should be. I call on the minister to ensure that our local authorities modernise their approach to how they promote local services. I have attended public meetings on a number of occasions and told people that we have Olympic-sized swimming pools in Glasgow that are not being used to the extent that they should be and people have appeared to be surprised. Sometimes it is convenient for parents to be surprised because they do not always want to live up to their responsibilities. We should do more to ensure that they do so and to provide a national standard that young people can expect of their local youth services.

I welcome the act but plead with the minister to ensure that we can enforce it by modernising the police force and other authorities that are involved in its enforcement to ensure that we make progress.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

An attractive pastime is to replay exciting events such as cup finals and league decider matches. There has been a certain element of that here: members have been replaying the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill debate because many thought that they scored goals and felt that their opponents scored own goals, which they relished.

I want to advance beyond that and consider how we can deal with the things that are not going well and build on the things that are going well. First we have to acknowledge that we are all genuinely keen on local democracy, which includes the right of people to get things wrong, whether, in some people's eyes, the French or the Dutch, or the councils that are imposing or not imposing ASBOs—they are elected to get on with it. The Executive and the Parliament have to co-operate and encourage people to work together but, ultimately, whether to impose an ASBO is a local decision, which we have to live with.

Members have outlined examples of good local practice of councils involving the community in the way that was written into the act. A strong element of the act is that the local strategy has to involve consulting communities, especially young people, about facilities and producing facilities that they can use. As others have said in this and other debates, we have to consider the affordability and accessibility of facilities, on which some councils, for whatever reason, fall down.

Ultimately, the answer is people, not just facilities. Facilities are important. If one builds on all one's playing fields, one cannot be surprised if kids do not play football and get into trouble instead. However, people are more important, whether in funding or facilitating local sports clubs, in becoming qualified coaches or in developing teams and activities by working alongside young people.

In many cases, intelligent nursery teachers and local police can identify at the age of five or six young people who will end up in jail. They may not always be right, but they often are. Surely a commonsense society would put resources into dealing with kids at that age person to person, to try to straighten them out and to help their families to straighten them out. Many parents need a lot of support. We could almost be investing from the cradle to the grave because, as other members have said, it is not just a young-person problem; people of all ages create difficulties. People can usually sort out other people.

We have to develop and to copy good practice. The minister and I attended an excellent event some months ago, which was the final of the twilight football league, which gets young people playing football in the evenings instead of getting into trouble. That is an excellent project and there are many other similar ones. My complaint is that our system does not copy such projects rapidly enough. People say, "Yes, that's a good project," about projects such as that or good projects that are run by other bodies, such as Barnado's and the Prince's Trust. Surely we should ensure, through the Executive, local authorities, the Big Lottery Fund or trusts, that there are more such projects. We are not good at copying good practice, but we should do it more. The ministers are trying hard but, together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, they could notice what is going well and copy it. They could also point out to council X that its strategy on antisocial behaviour shows that it is weak on community activities and facilities and so on, and that it should do something to sort that out. Those are issues that can be attended to.

One other issue that always bugs me is the slowness of justice. Speeding up justice would have a great effect. People—young or old—making a nuisance of themselves and wandering about the streets without trial for months and months undermines the whole system. I suggested to some of my colleagues the idea of on-the-spot courts and fines, and getting sheriffs and magistrates to sit through the night to jail the drunks, but that was considered very illiberal. It may not be the right idea, but we should consider speeding up justice, which would help to create the public confidence of which so many members have spoken. Almost every speech has included some sensible points that we could build on. If we can cut out the party wah-wah and concentrate on the good ideas, we can get a long way.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Today's debate and the speeches from members across the political divide have highlighted the fact that not only is antisocial behaviour a serious problem that blights communities throughout Scotland but, regrettably, it is on the increase. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill was a flagship piece of legislation for the Executive and I have no doubts about the good intentions behind the proposals contained in it. However, the sad truth is that to date the act has been ineffective. Many of the powers in the act are lying dormant because police, housing associations and—as Bruce McFee pointed out—some local authorities are unwilling to use them. Why? In the first instance, the process to obtain ASBOs can be cumbersome and inefficient. In some local authorities, it can take up to nine months from the time the first complaint is made to the police before an ASBO is issued.

Can members imagine how soul destroying it is for householders who have reported serious incidents on a number of occasions over a period of time, involving threatening behaviour from an individual brandishing not just an ordinary kitchen knife but a machete, to be told by the local authority ASB team to keep a diary of the offending behaviour? Then and only then will the wheels be put in motion to apply for an ASBO. That is the situation that the people to whom the minister referred—the elderly, mothers and others on a Bothwell housing estate—face today. No wonder people there and elsewhere in Scotland are losing confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Executive's failure properly to think through its ASBO policy has resulted in breaches of ASBOs—a criminal offence that carries a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction, and up to five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine on indictment—being sidelined in favour of a charge using common-law breach of the peace.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will Margaret Mitchell take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Not at the moment.

I am given to understand that that is on the instruction of the Crown Office to procurators fiscal. I should be interested to hear the minister's comments on that point.

Furthermore, as some local authorities have discovered, there is a potential loophole when a breach of an ASBO comes to court. In one case, someone successfully argued that they did not know that an ASBO had been issued against them, despite a registered letter having been signed for. As a result, the police and the local authority have had to introduce a further procedure to ensure that that does not happen again and apply it retrospectively to all other cases.

In addition to that, dispersal orders have been rendered ineffective because, by being time and place specific, they are too restrictive. For example, if the timeframe that is specified is 24 hours, the subject of the order merely resumes their previous antisocial behaviour in the 25th hour. That, coupled with the fact that ASBOs are expensive because of all the notifications required, means that they are simply not being used. Meanwhile, other measures, such as closure of premises orders, can take years to implement.

The wheels of justice turn notoriously slowly but those are problems that have to be addressed now. All the legislation that the Executive is introducing is useless without proper enforcement. Taking up Donald Gorrie's point about good practice, I think that the Executive has the remedy in its own hands. It need look no further than the Broomhouse experience in Edinburgh, to which Annabel Goldie referred. The police had an almost constant presence, working shifts and changing duty several times over a six-month period. That meant that troublemakers knew that the police would not be disappearing for long periods of time, and the results were impressive. Car crime fell by 80 per cent. Complaints against youths dropped by 62 per cent. In all that time there were no arrests. The presence of police on the beat provided an immediate and effective response to the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. What is more, by the police acting as a deterrent rather than responding to an incident after the event, the quality of life in that local community was dramatically altered for the better, and the cost of expensive court cases, prison and probation was saved.

That is why I whole-heartedly support the amendment in Annabel Goldie's name and challenge the minister to tell us why he is not putting more money into providing more police officers, together with more police time, on streets throughout Scotland, when that is evidently the most effective and cost-effective way to address antisocial behaviour.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I would like to start with something quite obvious and something with which I hope we will all agree, which is to congratulate children throughout Scotland on their contribution to society, their engagement in the issues in our society and their articulation of issues. On all those fronts, today's children do much better than children did in my day—we were a repressed and inarticulate minority when I was a child.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Stewart Stevenson is making up for lost time.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That is a kind remark from the minister, who is obviously impressed by my ability to articulate and engage. However, he will have his chance to follow up that remark later.

At the core of the matter is an extremely important point: our kids do us proud, but a few blot the copybook for the overwhelming majority. I know that all members who are present agree with that, so we should keep it at the core of our debate, which has brought to the Parliament a variety of experience from many different communities throughout Scotland. We must hold that variety and the need for a variety of responses close to us as we seek to understand the way forward.

There are no simple answers and there is no single answer. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which the Scottish National Party had reservations about but supported, makes a contribution to equipping communities and organisations to deal with the problems that many of our communities experience. I welcome the fact that, when we were dealing with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, Margaret Curran accepted amendments in my name that mean that, in due course, the Parliament will formally hear of the progress that is being made.

I have a word of caution for the minister. We must not conflate crime with antisocial behaviour in a way that confuses and blurs the message. In her opening remarks, there was a danger of the minister doing that when she discussed drug dealers, who are criminals of the first order, in the same context as antisocial behaviour. Of course, all crime is antisocial—we have defined it to be so by its very nature—but we must be cautious.

After the minister made remarks commending the work of community wardens in my constituency on a previous occasion, I extracted those remarks from the Official Report and delivered them to the community wardens in my constituency. They welcomed the minister's support, which was much deserved, but they are already saying that resources are a problem. We have made a start on a journey, but there is much more to do. As the minister said, strategies must aid prevention and we must promote early intervention. That is an important point.

The debate has been one of the scariest for a long time. I am very worried about the fact that my colleague Kenny MacAskill agreed with the Prime Minister, adopted his language and supported his social attitudes. However, does that not touch on the fact that we share common concerns? Therefore, let us share common solutions.

Annabel Goldie once again articulated the benefits of zero tolerance. I will sound a note of caution on that. In New York, the crimes on which the police focused—which were largely crimes of violence and street crime—certainly disappeared from the areas where zero tolerance was exercised. However, beyond those areas, the levels of crime rose. Not only that, but in the areas in which zero tolerance was, quite reasonably, being imposed, there was a transfer from overt, violent street crime to more subtle forms of crime, partly commercial and retail crime.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is Stewart Stevenson against a zero-tolerance policy?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am not against zero tolerance; I am saying only that we should be cautious about the value that it can deliver.

Richard Baker made a slightly unusual speech. I was not aware that there were any personal residences on the Beach Boulevard in Aberdeen, but there was an issue there nonetheless. However, where are the boys, girls, men and women who previously gathered with their cars at the Beach Boulevard? If we were to ask the people in Torry and Nigg, we might get an answer. It is like squeezing the soap in the bath: we have simply sent them 3 miles down the road.

It was scary to discover that Stewart Maxwell once scared people with his motorcycle helmet. I confess to the Parliament that, when I was a nascent Teddy boy, my fluorescent socks used to alarm my parents and others.

Margaret Jamieson made the valid point that ASBOs should be a last resort. There is some danger that, in some parts of the debate, we might be suggesting that they are actually an early intervention and I hope that, in his closing speech, the minister will clarify that that is not the intention. Margaret Jamieson also highlighted the complexity of human behaviour and, indeed, misbehaviour.

I bring back to the Parliament a phrase from another time: tough love. We have to love the antisocial offenders. We must love them to death to move them into the main body of our society and away from a path that leads to criminality and incarceration. We must also help communities to help themselves and empower people who feel disempowered. If the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the funding from the Executive achieve that, they will have been worth while.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Hugh Henry to close the debate. Minister, you have just under 10 minutes.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The debate has been interesting. It is also an opportune debate to have at this time. It has been brought to Parliament not because, as Colin Fox suggested, we believe that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004

"has not lived up to its billing",

but because we believe that it is right to acknowledge that new legislation exists, to acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made to date in its use, and to acknowledge that the level of frustration and expectation in many communities is such that we hope that more will be done with this important tool that the Scottish Parliament has provided.

It is right that we focus some attention on the people who are responsible locally. In a sense, we have done our bit—we have passed the legislation and provided the money—and we want to encourage the people who are responsible at local level to implement the legislation and to use it appropriately.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the minister join me in supporting the call that the editor of the East Fife Mail made to communities in east Fife to continue to support the police? Will he also encourage the editors of other local newspapers, whose influence on communities is powerful, to do the same?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I was encouraged by the response of local newspaper editors throughout the country when Parliament debated the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill and I have been encouraged since then. Local papers have a huge influence in their communities and their response to the campaign to tackle drug dealing at local level has been positive and constructive.

It is right that we reflect on what has been done and, more important, on what is still to be done. We have come a long way since we introduced the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. It is interesting that the debate about the act has heightened awareness of the broader issue of antisocial behaviour orders. I remind Parliament that the orders were not a product of the act; they existed beforehand. However, many people and communities throughout Scotland now see ASBOs in a new light because they are, to some extent, reinforced by other measures that we can take.

Colin Fox said that the act

"has not lived up to its billing"

and the Conservatives criticised us for lack of police numbers and lack of action, so it is right that I put those comments into context. It is only seven months since the power of dispersal came into being. We always acknowledged that it is a power of last resort and that other action must be taken before it is considered, but in the past seven months we have seen it being used appropriately in the Aberdeen area.

Richard Baker mentioned some of the specific problems in Aberdeen. I visited the area with him, and in response to Stewart Stevenson's question I point out that people who live in the vicinity are overwhelmingly in support of what has been done. Many of them said that this is the first time for a long time that they are able to have a decent night's sleep. Stewart Stevenson asked where the people who were causing trouble have gone. To use the words of a song that is, I am sure, familiar to him, the police have sent them

" ... homewards Tae think again."

They have gone back to the communities from where they came into Aberdeen to plague, annoy and frighten local residents. That is a good example of local agencies using the new powers.

Mike Pringle said that he was disappointed by comments about antisocial behaviour that were made by an Edinburgh councillor, and that the police should be congratulated on using the act and that councillors and elected representatives should not make criticisms on operational matters. I agree to some extent and I hope that Mike Pringle will join me in congratulating the police in Aberdeen, and in asking elected representatives who have criticised the police to reflect on their comments.

However, I profoundly disagree with Mike Pringle's comment that the act is different from what he called the "draconian" bill that was introduced. Perhaps I can have a conversation with him afterwards, because I was deeply involved all the way through the bill's process and to my recollection we did not depart from anything in the bill as introduced. We refined and improved it, but there were no significant changes. It is a myth to suggest that there was a major change.

There were some constructive contributions to the debate. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that Kenny MacAskill surprised everyone with his new Labour credentials, although he let them slip when he returned to his old mantra—which has been missing for a while from his justice responsibilities—and asked yet again for more resources. He said that agencies should be properly resourced. I have to say that during the life of the Scottish Parliament local authorities and other agencies have been resourced to an unprecedented level, whether for education, social work or a range of other services. On top of that, as the Minister for Justice said, we have invested more. We have provided £113 million to deal not only with antisocial behaviour orders but with wardens, mediation services and other positive ways of trying to resolve antisocial behaviour. We have put £10 million into community safety and £63 million into youth justice on top of all the other measures that are being taken.

I return to my point about having a degree of perspective about how long the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 has been in force. Not only is it only seven months since the power of dispersal came in, it is also only seven months since the power to close premises came in. There have already been, in Fife, two closure orders, one of which was against a private householder. It is only four months since the noise nuisance measures came in, but there have already been 76 warnings for noise nuisance in Edinburgh. It is only three months since the power to seize vehicles came in, but there have already been, in Fife, three vehicles seized: one car and two motorcycles. I have been notified that other warnings have been issued in that respect in Grampian.

It is only two months since the fixed-penalty notice pilot in Tayside started, but 400 notices have already been issued. In a short space of time, we have seen some agencies positively embracing this important act. The message that we want to send out from today's debate is that some agencies have looked constructively at what the act can bring to communities and we want others to learn lessons from them and to copy their behaviour.

I turn to some specific points. Margaret Jamieson asked a question about housing associations.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Very briefly, please.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Housing associations asked for and were given the power to introduce antisocial behaviour orders, and questions must be asked of them. Why are they failing their areas by ruling out antisocial behaviour orders without proper consideration? That is an important message for the housing association that Margaret Jamieson mentioned, but it is also important for many others.

Paul Martin asked about policing. There is an important issue to be addressed, but although he talks about deployment of the police we need to ask the local authority in the area whether it raised the matter with the chief constable.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Henry, you are well over time. We have questions at 11.40.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I beg your pardon. I was given wrong information.

We need to ask the police at local level what powers they have used and what they have done.

Important steps have been taken and the act is making a welcome contribution. I commend those who have taken action and I encourage those who have still to take action to examine what has been done in other areas of Scotland. The act is beginning to have an effect and I look forward to action being extended elsewhere.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — General Questions

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made on the Equal Opportunities Committee's recommendations on hand-held health records for Gypsy Travellers. (S2O-6936)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Developing services that are accessible and fair for all is a fundamental priority for the national health service in Scotland. The national resource centre for ethnic minority health, in partnership with the Gypsy Traveller community and the NHS, has developed a hand-held patient record of personal health, which we plan to launch later this month. Awareness-raising interagency training seminars, which will involve members of the Gypsy Traveller community, will also be available to NHS staff to support use of the records.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

That is a welcome answer. Dr Rafik Gardee from the national resource centre for ethnic minority health told the committee:

"as the hand-held patient record is ready, it should be launched as soon as possible. That way, we would retain the confidence of the community".

He pointed out that training is fundamental and said:

"we have made a proposal to the Executive that the equality unit, the health improvement strategy division and the Health Department as a whole should do something constructive."

I am sure that they will. He seeks

"the necessary resources to ensure that training takes place."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 24 May 2005; c 956.]

He made the important point that—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question, please.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

—the resource centre will do that training in association with Gypsy Travellers.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I agree with that. It is important that everyone who is involved be happy with the environment in which the records are rolled out. The awareness-raising training event for NHS and local authority staff was designed with representatives from the Gypsy Traveller community to be delivered by the community. It will also be necessary to promote understanding and partnership between local NHS and community care services and the Gypsy Traveller community. I will ensure that my officials liaise with officials from other Executive departments to ensure that we all adopt the same approach.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the outcomes were of its recent meetings with HIV organisations to discuss its consultation on compulsory blood screening. (S2O-6952)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Executive officials have taken part in discussions organised by HIV Scotland and Positive Voice as part of our consultation on blood testing—not blood screening—in specific circumstances following criminal incidents. Because of interest in the topic, the closing date for contributions to the consultation has been extended to Monday 6 June. We will consider the way forward in the light of all responses to the consultation.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that the Executive should have worked with those organisations on development of the proposals, rather than merely treating them as consultees? Does she accept that many of the arguments that were heard during those discussions place a serious question mark over the purpose of the proposals?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I put on record for the interest of all members that the purpose of the proposals that are out for consultation is to seek to give better protection to victims of crime, particularly sexual crimes including rape, in which the victims believe that they might have been infected with HIV or other blood-borne disease. We also seek to protect police officers; that is the result of a petition that was lodged by the Scottish Police Federation. I accept that there are several difficult dilemmas around the subject, so it is important that we consult all relevant organisations. I hope that Mr Harvie will acknowledge that there has been constructive engagement with those organisations.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support businesses, communities and vulnerable individuals affected by the recent decision of the Clydesdale Bank to close branches. (S2O-6972)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I fully understand the concerns arising from the recent announcement by the Clydesdale Bank regarding branch closures. Following that announcement, I had an early meeting with David Thorburn, the chief operating officer of the Clydesdale Bank, to discuss the implications for customers, employees, and the bank's future operations in Scotland. I understand from Mr Thorburn that the bank is working closely with trade unions to ensure that the process is properly managed. I am also aware that the bank has entered into an agreement with the Post Office whereby transactional banking services will be available to all Clydesdale Bank customers through the Post Office network.

Mr Thorburn was similarly clear that he expects the Clydesdale Bank's business advisers to continue to provide the full range of support to business customers, including visiting individual companies where necessary. If people who are affected need help to secure alternative provision, however, the enterprise networks stand ready to assist.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The minister will recall his visit to my constituency during the Easter recess and the subsequent agreement on work that is to be undertaken to assist Ayrshire's recovery. Does the minister agree that the actions of the Clydesdale Bank in giving notice to close three branches and leave only one branch in my constituency do nothing to promote Ayrshire? Will he take action to speed up assistance for Ayrshire so that companies such as the Clydesdale Bank will take on board their social responsibilities before seeking hard profit, for example their £2 billion in the last financial year?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I certainly recall the meeting that I had with Margaret Jamieson, Cathy Jamieson and other parliamentary representatives from Ayrshire. I assure Margaret Jamieson that I want to progress several of the positive ideas that came out of that meeting.

Obviously the Clydesdale Bank has indicated a strong commitment to remaining in Scotland. I have been assured that the arrangement that has been reached with the Post Office will mean that there will be banking facilities for Clydesdale Bank customers through the Post Office network and that no one should be more than five miles away from a Clydesdale Bank, although I accept that that might vary from place to place.

The Clydesdale Bank also assured me that it would normally seek to undertake visits to the individual businesses and companies that are customers of the bank, as well as having several flagship branches around Scotland where the bank can deliver a much wider range of services.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister refuse the response that he received from Mr Thorburn of the Clydesdale Bank, which is an attack on socially excluded communities? Will he also write to all the major banking organisations to remind them of their social responsibility to provide services to a cross-section of communities, which depend on such services to stop loan sharks continuing with their activities?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept that the banks have a social responsibility. Paul Martin and other members will be aware that we have a financial inclusion action plan; Johann Lamont will announce more details about that in the coming weeks. That plan will insist on regular contact with the banks and it will consider a number of ways in which the banks can respond to groups in society with which they have not interacted until now. That plan is a very important part of the strategy that we are rolling out to bridge opportunity gaps.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that waste water services are not adversely affected by new housing developments. (S2O-6969)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Where Scottish Water believes that the waste water infrastructure is inadequate to support a proposed new development, it will advise the local planning authority accordingly. We will require Scottish Water to publish an annual report on the strategic capacity of its water and waste water networks as of 1 April 2006.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Given the amount of waste water flooding that has been experienced by some of my constituents and those of many of my colleagues, will the minister assure me that the responsibility for providing any remedial action that is deemed necessary by Scottish Water at the planning stage for new housing developments should be borne by developers?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

A local authority may already impose planning conditions in approving a development that would require the developer to address constraints of the kind that Janis Hughes is concerned about. The developer would normally do that in partnership with the local council and Scottish Water. As of the next investment period, developers will be required to meet all the local network costs, subject to the usual arrangements for discounting for Scottish Water's future income. There will be a new alignment similar to that which applies in England and Wales; developers will automatically be involved in paying for necessary infrastructure improvements.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the minister knows, some systems are already running over capacity for historic reasons, which means that there will be a split between costs for upgrading and those for expansion. Has agreement been reached between ministers, Scottish Water and the developers as to how those costs will be split?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In my statement to Parliament I made it clear that the new investment programme will require that the strategic network costs be met by Scottish Water and that local network costs be met by developers. That will be subject to a reasonable cost contribution from Scottish Water to reflect its income from that new infrastructure during the first 12 years of its life.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Fife Council's draft structure plan specifies an overallocation of housing requirements in order to drive the regional economy. That is causing a lot of concern in communities such as Tayport, which is due to see its population increase by 25 per cent, which will put water and sewerage services under strain. What priority for investment does the Executive attach to those overallocations of housing requirements under the quality and standards III programme?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We expect Scottish Water to work with local authorities and others under the quality and standards III programme to identify realistically what projects are likely to come on stream first and to address those needs first.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the specific programmed dates are for the start of construction of the six improvement schemes on the A75 between Stranraer and Dumfries. (S2O-6924)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Subject to satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, I expect construction of the six schemes to start in the 2006-07 financial year.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Similar questions have been asked by me and my colleagues for several years. Since I asked the same question in 2002, all that has happened is that all the schemes have slipped, in some cases by two to three years and now by three to four years. Will the minister accept that including schemes in a programme that slips continually is no answer to the transport problems of the south-west?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Detailed proposals have been published for three of the schemes and the objections have been discussed with the people who made them. I hope that those three schemes can proceed without a public local inquiry. We are in a strong position to proceed with them.

The most significant of the other schemes is the Dunragit scheme; Alasdair Morgan will be aware that there have been problems there because of an ancient monument site and the wish of the local community for the village to be bypassed. I am told that there is now a new scheme. I visited the location and urged development of a new scheme that would bypass the monument site and the village, which is now being worked on with the local council. I am optimistic that that very important scheme will now proceed.

I can inform Alasdair Morgan that detailed proposals are being developed for the Hardgrove and Cairntop schemes, not for overtaking opportunities but for a larger dual carriageway. I hope that that is positive news for the member. I am determined that all the schemes will process in 2006-07, or earlier if at all possible.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I share the minister's optimism about the possibility of a Dunragit bypass. However, is the minister aware that the continued delay of the schemes, to which Alasdair Morgan referred, simply exacerbates the problem of convoys of traffic speeding through villages such as Springholm and Crocketford on the A75? Residents are increasingly in danger whenever they need to cross the road. Does the minister agree that those villages also fully deserve a bypass? In the meantime, will the minister consider temporary installation of speed cameras to reduce persistent law breaking—which is what it is—once and for all?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am well aware of the importance of the schemes. The six schemes will involve total investment of about £30 million. They have been delayed and I share members' concern about that. As always, there are explanations to do with objections, to do with the details of the schemes and to do with the information that comes back after detailed site investigations.

As Minister for Transport, I am determined to ensure that the projects are pushed along and delivered on time and on budget. In the meantime, if safety measures can be put in place, I will always consider them. However, I am absolutely determined that the six schemes will all proceed in 2006-07. They will be good for the communities concerned and good for the economy of the area.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive, following publication of the report from Professor David Kerr, how it will ensure that health services are delivered as locally as possible. (S2O-6958)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Executive's initial response to Professor Kerr's report was set out in Parliament on 25 May. I welcome the broad thrust of Professor Kerr's proposals and will bring forward a detailed implementation plan in September.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The minister will, of course, be aware that Professor Kerr's report helpfully states that any

"concentration of health services on fewer sites should be informed by"

clear and unambiguous evidence of actual clinical benefit. How will the minister ensure that the views of patients and communities are heard?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Professor Kerr has given us in Scotland the opportunity to lead the way in consideration of what services are to be provided and where, and of what services require, or do not require, to be aggregated into a specialist centre. The evidence is that we will be able to lead the world on those issues.

Professor Kerr also said, with regard to NHS reform and change, that this is the end of the take-it-or-leave-it culture. One size does not fit all. I am clear, and Professor Kerr is clear, about the fact that we need to continue the drive towards proper consultation and engagement. That engagement will be for members of the public but it will also be for patients' groups, the clinical community and local authorities, which will be an integral part of delivering Professor Kerr's proposals.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sure that the minister will agree that local services need local health care teams. Will he tell me what plans he has to recruit and train the workforce and to inform them about changes to local services?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Yes indeed. Professor Kerr tells us that we must manage chronic conditions more effectively, that we must deal with elderly and vulnerable people more effectively and that we must reduce admissions to accident and emergency wards, and especially in the acute sector. Our workforce planning now, as in the past, reflects the direction of travel that Professor Kerr wants. We are training more allied health professionals—dieticians, physiotherapists and other clinical staff—in our communities. We will revise and develop our training plans in order to support the efforts that are being made.

During production of his report, Professor Kerr engaged with the education community, which will help to ensure that we get the required skills into the service. We need workforce planning and we need to change the way in which we educate our health care professionals.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on First ScotRail's increased journey times for its timetable in Fife and the impact that that may have on passengers' willingness to travel by train. (S2O-6959)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Passengers want a robust timetable and services that they can rely on. I have been assured that the additional two minutes that are being added to the Fife circle route reflect increased passenger loading times that are the result of increased passenger numbers and the level of congestion on the network. Wherever possible, however, I would like to see improvements in journey times.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I thank the minister for that response; it appears to be passengers' fault that the trains are not able to run on time.

Late trains are a major frustration for passengers; the answer to the problem should not necessarily be to increase journey times. Does the minister agree that the redevelopment of Waverley station is essential because that will increase the number of trains that can enter and leave the station and will therefore eliminate the need for trains to be held up adjacent to Princes Street gardens?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that redevelopment of Waverley station is vital. This week, a crucial meeting drew together all the project partners to consider the future of that project and its timetabling. The first phase of the redevelopment of Waverley is proceeding, but there are other measures that can be taken to improve the Fife circle services. As Scott Barrie knows, the introduction of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line will help with freight movements across the Forth rail bridge; 15 per cent of the problems on the Fife circle are caused by freight movements.

Closer joint working between ScotRail and Network Rail is starting to happen and the provision of more drivers, increased service levels to get cleaning and despatch right at stations and more effective timetabling of freight are being considered. I hope that all those improvements will have an impact. Reliability is important, but so too are fast trains.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before First Minister's questions, members will wish to welcome Halldór Blöndal, who is the president of the Icelandic Parliament, and a cross-party delegation of MPs. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1679)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no formal plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I draw the First Minister's attention to the report on NHS 24 that the Scottish Executive is refusing to publish until after First Minister's questions, but which has been reported in today's The Herald . The report describes NHS 24 as

"the biggest health project ever launched by the SE ... with implications for every household in Scotland."

Why then did the First Minister fail to ensure that it was properly managed?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The purpose of calling for the report in the first place, when we announced the review in February, was precisely to answer some of the questions that Ms Sturgeon's question implies. Although NHS 24 serves more than a million callers every year very effectively, a significant number of individual complaints were made and many other people felt that the service was letting them down, even though they might not have complained formally. There were serious issues to be addressed and an experienced individual was asked to compile a report. I believe that he has done that effectively. The report is being published today and I expect the Minister for Health and Community Care to act on its recommendations.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

One of the serious problems that has been identified is the lack of management by the Scottish Executive. I refer the First Minister to page 8 of the report, which says:

"there was no-one within the SE with a programme manager role to ensure that this large and complex project was proceeding as planned."

I remind the First Minister that NHS 24 is a lifeline service. People who are ill or whose children are ill depend on it to access vital medical treatment. Does the First Minister agree that to have had no one in the Executive in overall charge of what is a vital service represents a serious failure to safeguard the public interest on his part and on the part of the Minister for Health and Community Care?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not able to comment on individual sentences that might have been taken in or out of context from a leaked report. I hope that Ms Sturgeon will ensure that the Minister for Health and Community Care is made aware of where she received a copy of the leaked report from.

I hope, too, that the report makes a constructive contribution to the improvement of a service that, by and large, delivers its services successfully, but which has failed a number of the individuals who have tried to use it over the course of its existence. As a result of the report and of the experience of NHS 24, action will be required inside both NHS 24 and the Scottish Executive Health Department. That action will be taken properly and the Minister for Health and Community Care will respond to the report's recommendations this afternoon.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is rather disingenuous for the First Minister to suggest that he has not read the report that will be published this afternoon. I also suggest to him that a Government that had been doing its job properly would have known about the problems in NHS 24 and would have taken action to sort them out. I am referring to problems such as the shelving of the promised pilot project; the lack of any arrangements for rural communities; and the decision to press ahead with the roll-out, knowing full well that too few staff were in place to cope.

Last week, the chair of NHS 24 resigned, obviously because she anticipated the criticism that the report levels at her. When the First Minister gets round to reading the report, if he has not already done so, will he and his Minister for Health and Community Care accept full responsibility for their part in this fiasco, which could have put lives at risk?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have two brief comments to make, the first of which is that it is important to keep the matter in perspective. Of the 1.25 million calls that were made to NHS 24, 86 resulted in a complaint being made. That said, I believe that not all of those who were dissatisfied with the service complained formally. A number of complaints were made and can be followed through and assessed, but many others would have been made by people who, although they wanted to complain, did not take the opportunity to do so.

We launched the review in February precisely because we take responsibility for these matters. That is precisely why the interim report has been produced so quickly and why the Minister for Health and Community Care will respond exceptionally quickly to implement the recommendations of the report and to ensure that the board and management of NHS 24 and the management of the Executive's Health Department respond correctly in advance of the final report, which is due in September.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The report highlights a lack of management and leadership and suggests that the approach that was taken to the problems in this vital health service was tantamount to someone sticking their head in the sand. Is not the running theme of the Government's approach to health—whether on waiting times or the management of NHS 24—a failure to take responsibility and to act to ensure that the vital public and patient interest is protected? Does the First Minister accept that the buck stops with him?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon can try to deflect attention from the figures that were announced last week in my absence, but they show a remarkable reduction in the number of people who are waiting longest in our health service, in the waiting lists for out-patients and in the waiting times for out-patients. The figures are the result of the remarkable achievements by health professionals inside the national health service in Scotland who have been working hard to ensure that targets are met and that they deliver on the waiting times for those who wait longest. We will continue to exert pressure inside the system to ensure that the waiting times come down further for more people and that the lists are affected accordingly.

We will do the same thing with NHS 24. Ms Sturgeon would be entirely accurate to say that no one had accepted responsibility if there had been no review, if there was no report and if the report was not acted upon. Of course, what probably disturbs her most is that I ordered a review in February, it has taken place, it will be published today and all its recommendations will be acted on by the Minister for Health and Community Care. When the final report comes out in September, we will take exactly the same approach.

The thing that irritates Ms Sturgeon most is the fact that we do take responsibility and that we want to solve the problems. Ms Sturgeon and the Opposition find that so frustrating, yet they have proposed absolutely no alternative solutions or actions for the health service—they are devoid of ideas, devoid of policy and devoid of solutions. We are the Administration that is taking the actions and making a difference.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's cabinet. (S2F-1680)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At our next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Undoubtedly, part of the discussion will be about tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, which we debated earlier this morning. As the First Minister will be aware, two thirds of local authorities and more than 70 per cent of registered social landlords have told the Executive that they are unlikely to use antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s and, as all of us know well, police forces across Scotland are reluctant to use the new power of dispersal.

Is it not typical of a bullying and petulant Executive that, instead of listening to the people who have to tackle and deal with these problems in our local communities, it has tried to force unwarranted and unnecessary measures down their throats and now threatens them with a loss of funding if they fail to toe the line?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is quite remarkable for the traditional party of law and order, which has changed its colours on many issues in the past decade or more, to change its colours on law and order, too. It is astonishing that Mr McLetchie says that any Government's appropriate response to the decision of some local authorities and agencies not to apply for antisocial behaviour orders because that is too difficult should be to walk away, to leave alone those who commit antisocial behaviour on our streets to continue doing so and not to take action or to raise the issue with local authorities and agencies.

If the Conservatives had any commitment to dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour, they would back Cathy Jamieson and demand that local authorities and agencies implement the law that is available to them and take action against antisocial behaviour.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The trouble with the First Minister is that he is all political posturing and window-dressing. To tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, the police need greater resources to do the job, rather than the window-dressing of law after law that they cannot enforce effectively. That is the real difference between us.

When the measure was passed months ago, the First Minister and his Executive were well told by the police forces of Scotland that it was unnecessary, ineffective and counterproductive. They ignored that. The Executive has been embarrassed today because what we said would be the case has proved to be the case in the light of experience.

Instead of all the window-dressing, the Scottish Executive should listen to people such as the police and the Parole Board for Scotland's chairman. Yesterday, he said that criminals who would be denied parole because they were unfit for release were getting out anyway, because of the Executive's policy of automatic early release.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question, please.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Why will the First Minister not heed the advice of the people who have to tackle crime, instead of engaging in this window-dressing nonsense that makes no difference at all?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let us hear again that call from Mr McLetchie. He says that antisocial behaviour orders should not be used, that we should not stand up to antisocial behaviour and that people should just be allowed to continue with the behaviour that is causing havoc in communities. He said that clearly today. I am not normally political about crime and antisocial behaviour, but I advise every Labour and Liberal Democrat member to remind every one of their constituents that the Conservative party adopts that position. It says, "Do not use antisocial behaviour orders; do not take action against antisocial behaviour." It is wrong on both counts.

It is vital not only that the laws are in place, but that they are used consistently. Where they are used, they make a difference. They are making a difference in my constituency and in other constituencies. The councils and registered social landlords that are not yet using them should be, because they should represent their local voters and tenants by taking action where it is required.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Be brief, please, Mr McLetchie.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister well knows that the power of dispersal has not been used in his constituency and he should not try to pretend otherwards.

The problem with the Scottish Executive's approach to this issue and many others is that it does easy tasks such as passing laws that make no difference but dithers and delays over measures that would make a difference. That is the Executive's characteristic. The police have said that they have no confidence in the Executive on the matter.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There must be a question.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Parole Board for Scotland has no confidence in the Executive on the matter. If those bodies have no confidence in the Executive, how on earth can the public have confidence in the Executive?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is complete rubbish. All police associations in Scotland welcomed the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. Police officers who work closest to the ground—superintendents and constables—were desperate to have the powers and they are desperate to use them with backing from other authorities, which should give them that support.

We all know not only that there are record numbers of police officers in this country, which we need—the number is now higher than it ever was in 18 years of Conservative Governments—that there are higher levels of activity by those police officers, that more crimes are being cleared up and recorded and that more action is being taken against crime and antisocial behaviour, but that much more needs to be done, which is why the new laws are so important. Whether or not the Conservatives now advise Scotland's police forces and local authorities not to use the powers in question or to take action, I expect police forces and local authorities to use their powers, to take action and to put local communities first—and I expect that they will do so.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Exceptionally, there are four supplementary questions that I judge to be important and urgent.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

What discussions is the Scottish Executive having with the City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders police and event organisers in connection with the G8 summit to ensure the safety and security of local residents and businesses and visitors to Edinburgh? I thank the First Minister for his previous commitment of financial support, but does he agree that we need an urgent review of the city's capacity to accommodate people who have a legitimate desire to protest, given the city's prominence as one of the world's capital cities?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope that everybody will calm down a little bit. People are organising legitimate protests. We live in a free and democratic society and protests are possible in this country. Protests should be well ordered, well organised and respectful of the cause with which they are associated. They should also be peaceful. Therefore, I urge everybody who will be involved in protests around the time of the G8 summit to behave in a peaceful way and to work closely with the responsible authorities. We will provide additional funding—which will be measured and appropriate—but we will not sign blank cheques. We will also facilitate discussions among the organisers and the relevant police and other authorities, which we are already doing. Those discussions should continue. If they do so, both legitimate protests and the safety and security of local citizens will be possible.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

At the next Cabinet meeting, will the First Minister discuss the content of the "Frontline Scotland" programme that was screened last night? The programme was about Scottish haemophiliacs being infected with hepatitis C and HIV as a result of national health service treatment. Will the First Minister give a commitment today that the Executive will examine the evidence that was contained in the programme and reconsider establishing a public inquiry into the worst medical disaster in the history of the NHS? Such an inquiry has been called for by those who have been affected and their families.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Shona Robison will be aware that Mr Kerr was to attend a recent meeting of the Health Committee to discuss the matter, but that he has been unable to comment further on the call for a public inquiry as a result of court action. We will comment once the courts and the other authorities have dealt with the legal issues appropriately. The need for a public inquiry remains an issue for debate and discussion, but it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further today.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware of the publication today of the Accounts Commission's damning best-value report on Inverclyde Council, which has been met with anger and concern—if not much surprise—in my constituency. Does he agree that my community should not be resigned to having poor service from the council? Will he confirm that failure on such a scale will simply not be tolerated? Does he understand my constituents' concerns and doubts about the current leader and chief executive of Inverclyde Council being up to the task of sorting out the mess?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform made it clear today that the report on Inverclyde Council should be taken seriously by all local people who are concerned. It is being taken seriously by those with responsibilities at the national level. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform expects urgent action—to which I believe the council has agreed—to address the issues that have been raised and we will closely monitor developments to ensure that there is progress. If there is no progress, further action will be needed.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The First Minister will have seen the deeply disturbing story on the front page of The Herald , under the heading, "Toxic ships threat to Scotland". The story is about a company that owns 60-year-old ships that are full of toxic waste. It wants to buy the Nigg yard, which is in my constituency, and scrap the ships in it. Does the First Minister agree that the Nigg yard is a key asset in the Highlands? Does he agree that we have a skilled workforce and that there are highly desirable alternative buyers, such as the Cromarty Firth Port Authority, which envisages a long-term future for the yard that involves renewable energy fabrication work and a strategic rejigging of all oil, sea and energy-related work in the wider context of the Cromarty firth? Finally, will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will evaluate all potential buyers in the context of the potential damage to our very special Highland environment?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the potential buyers and their role. Our commitment to the development of renewable energy production capacity should be clear to all members, and we will continue to support that in as many guises as we can.

On the speculation today about toxic ships, let me make it clear that any action of that sort at that yard or elsewhere would require the approval not only of the relevant planning authorities, but of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which would need to be assured that there was no threat to the environment either from the removal of ships from another yard to that location or from any work that might take place on the ships in that yard.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1681)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate meetings planned with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The First Minister will have seen the documentary evidence that was laid bare in Sunday's newspapers that exposes a highly questionable and even corrupt relationship between Lothian NHS Board and Labour politicians. In the light of those documents, does the First Minister believe that it is acceptable that the chairman of Lothian NHS Board gave a Labour MP the right to edit health board statements on hospital cuts before they were released? Is it also acceptable that the chief executive of the former West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust circulated confidential, private communications to Labour councillors to give them party-political advantage during a controversial ward closure campaign?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At a glance, having seen the reports, I do not believe that either of those interpretations is an accurate analysis of the facts as they are laid out even in the newspapers. I also regard it as a matter for Lothian NHS Board, which should answer for its own actions.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am astonished by that answer. Has the Labour Party in Scotland become so mired in these practices that it cannot see political corruption in front of its own eyes? Let me help the First Minister with the answers. It is not acceptable for chairman Brian Cavanagh, a former Labour councillor, to seek Robin Cook's approval of press releases that are issued on behalf of Lothian NHS

Board. It is not acceptable that Peter Gabbitas, the then chief executive of West Lothian Healthcare NHS Trust, blind copied private correspondence to Labour councillors in West Lothian for political gain. It is not acceptable for Jennifer Stirton, the director of communications at Lothian NHS Board, to tell her staff to cover up my involvement in a public consultation exercise. Does the First Minister accept that he has a duty to defend integrity in public life in Scotland, and will he seek the resignation of the health board chairman for those clear breaches of public trust?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Opposition parties—with, possibly, one exception—might want to hang people by newspaper reports, but I do not think that that is an appropriate or fair way in which to behave. Those at Lothian NHS Board who are responsible should answer for themselves. As would be expected of me, I have checked one of the pretty outrageous assertions that Mr Fox makes—the assertion that a health board allowed a member of Parliament, of any party, to veto a press release. That was certainly not the case in this instance. It is entirely appropriate that all health boards work with all local politicians of all parties not just in advance of decisions being made, but to ensure that their constituents can be reassured by the way in which those decisions are publicised. If any of the allegations that are being exaggerated by Mr Fox are true, Lothian NHS Board should deal with them. If Mr Fox is still dissatisfied, there are many other ways for him to raise his issues in the Parliament.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the First Minister how the skills and experience of Scotland's public sector can be used to assist developing nations. (S2F-1687)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The best use of skills and experience from Scotland will be in helping training and trainers in Malawi and elsewhere. In that way, we can help to build their capacity to develop.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Is the First Minister aware that records show that the Boys Brigade took footballs to Malawi in the 1870s, which proves that Scotland was the first to take football to the rest of the world? In spite of Malawi's lack of opportunities, it might well develop enough talent to overtake Scotland in the FIFA rankings very soon.

On a more serious note, given that the First Minister has indicated that Scotland must play its part in developing Malawi's potential, is there a danger that his fresh talent initiative could run counter to that by attracting skilled workers away from working in the public services of Malawi and other poor countries? How does the First Minister intend to prevent that while also attracting new talent to Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On Michael McMahon's first point, it is the case that Scotland took football to the world, but I hope that it comes back again some day. On that note, on behalf of all members in the chamber, I wish Walter Smith and his team every success against Moldova this Saturday. Thank goodness we are not playing Malawi, as the member's point might then be relevant.

On his second point, there is a serious issue about the potential conflict between our desire to attract fresh talent to Scotland and the impact that that might have on developing countries. From the very beginning of the fresh talent initiative, we have been extremely sensitive to the fact that any recruitment by us of skilled people in Africa and elsewhere could be detrimental to the local economy and local public services. That is why we have not pursued such recruitment as part of the fresh talent initiative and will not do so. In a free world, we cannot stop people applying for jobs here, but we can ensure that we do not actively recruit in Malawi, in Africa and in other developing areas. We will continue to take that approach.

The best way for us to help people in Malawi and elsewhere is to ensure that they are able to build capacity locally. In my discussions with him last week, the President of Malawi mentioned his own idea for what might be called a fresh talent initiative for his country to try to attract some of the Malawian diaspora back even for a short time to help to build skills capacity. We intend to help him with that, with the 5,000 Malawians who are currently based in Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place about the use of data originating from Scottish Executive departments and agencies in relation to the planned introduction of ID cards and biometric passports. (S2F-1689)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have maintained regular contact with the Home Office on the development of plans for identity cards, including provisions around the verification of information.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The First Minister will be aware of the serious and growing concern about the cost of the identity tax surrounding the proposals. Of equal concern is the important issue of whether data that are transferred from Scottish Executive sources will be treated in a secure way. Does the First Minister share my concern that the technical standards that will be used will allow any commercial organisation to retrieve data from a biometric passport or ID card, without the person even being aware that that is taking place?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Stevenson puts a bit of a hole in his own argument by mentioning biometric passports. He has tried to make a political point about identity cards by making a technical point that goes far wider than the issue of identity cards. I will be happy to respond to him on that issue in due course.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I draw the First Minister's attention to the identity tax that Stewart Stevenson touched on. According to the Home Office, the figure for the cost of an ID card has risen to £93 but, according to independent researchers, those costs will rise further, to up to £300. Does the First Minister agree that even those members of his party who are untroubled by the civil liberties implications of ID cards should be deeply troubled by the social justice impact that such a high cost will have on the poorest individuals in society?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

This is about the implications for devolved matters.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Presiding Officer and members in the chamber will understand that the two parties in the Executive do not share a common view on the introduction of identity cards—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The First Minister is on his own.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, Mr Stevenson. As First Minister, I believe in doing these things reasonably and fairly, so it would be inappropriate for me to defend the Government's scheme in detail today.

I will say that, in the debates that we have on such issues, it is important that we are accurate and that we refer to the costs accurately. Many of the costs relate to the introduction of biometric passports, rather than to identity cards, and it is wrong to distort the debate in a way that implies something other than that. If Mr Harvie wants to ask me about the implications for devolved matters of the UK Government's bill, I will be happy to address that issue. I am sure that Mr McCabe will address it in the statement that he is due to make to the Parliament.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We started a minute and a half late, so we still have time for question 6.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's priorities are for the UK presidency of the European Union. (S2F-1690)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Scotland's priorities are twofold: first, to assist the UK Government in delivering a successful and well-organised presidency, during which we promote Scotland as a vibrant, dynamic and welcoming country; and secondly, to influence debate on issues such as better regulation, climate change and the future of structural funds.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Obviously, dealing with the European constitution will take up a lot of time during the UK presidency, but the First Minister mentioned climate change, which Tony Blair has said will be one of his priorities for the UK presidency. When the First Minister next meets Tony Blair, will he take up with him the issue of the proposed wave farm off Orkney? The Department of Trade and Industry is refusing to provide sufficient grant funding for the project, which is important for developing renewable energy and dealing with climate change. There is a danger that the project will not go ahead because of the lack of support from the UK Government.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I understand that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise is in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on the matter. Bilateral discussions are the right way of handling the issue. This and other important matters relating to the development of renewable energy form part of such discussions on a regular basis.