Plenary, 02 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 2, 2003

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

Antisocial Behaviour

The first item of business is a debate on antisocial behaviour, which will be concluded without any question being put.

As the second session of the Scottish Parliament gets into its stride, it is highly appropriate that one of the first issues that we should debate is antisocial behaviour and how to tackle it. If the Parliament is about anything, it is about discussing and finding solutions to the real-life problems that affect Scotland's communities—the real problems faced by real people.

It is incumbent on me to honour the commitment that I gave to local communities during the summer recess to present their issues to Parliament. The clear message from our communities is that antisocial behaviour is one of the biggest blights that they face. Day in, day out, the unacceptable behaviour of a small minority has an impact on the lives of the majority. Let me be categorically clear: antisocial behaviour is not just a problem perpetuated by young people; it covers many other sections of the community. The Executive has always said that, and will continue to do so.

Why is antisocial behaviour such a big issue for the Executive? One of the most distressing aspects of my work on antisocial behaviour in recent months has been the way in which some commentators and organisations have dismissed the seriousness of the issue by suggesting that we are overreacting to the normal antics of young people or grossly exaggerating a minor problem. Those perspectives completely misunderstand what happens in our communities and downgrade the seriousness of the violence, intimidation and harassment that takes place.

Antisocial behaviour is a big issue because it holds us back as individuals, as communities and as a country. It damages lives, reduces opportunities and undermines the positive impact of the significant investment in the past four years at national, local and community levels to raise standards, increase safety and generate prosperity. We cannot let the behaviour of a small minority compromise those efforts.

Antisocial behaviour is a big issue simply because it makes the lives of people throughout Scotland a misery. In part, the evidence can be seen in statistics and surveys, which indicate the serious and persistent problems of disorder, vandalism, graffiti and other forms of antisocial behaviour in communities. Aside from the statistics, the evidence can be heard at first hand in communities throughout the country in what ordinary people say among themselves and to their councillors and MSPs about the difficulties that they have to live with. People are angry and frustrated and we must listen to them.

We should never countenance the argument that we do not have to respond to the realities of victims' experience. Our concern emerged as a direct result of the experience of constituents who came to us in despair. I make no apology for responding to their plight, because that is what we were elected to do. As a group of residents not far from here in south Edinburgh put it to me, "The Parliament needs to listen and take on board the views of local people in communities. Those are the people who are affected and who have to suffer the heartache." As one resident from Clydebank said, "Ordinary decent people need to be supported, not overlooked." If that is what people think, we must listen. A group of tenants from Dundee said, "We just want to be able to live a normal life, but that seems to be impossible."

The Daily Record presented me with a dossier that brought together its readers' experiences of antisocial behaviour. The readers' response to the issue was immediate and overwhelming. They did not exaggerate their concerns and they were not being unduly populist; they simply highlighted their experiences and concerns, to which we should be prepared to listen.

Does the minister accept that the presentation of the issue in the Daily Record was unnecessarily populist and exaggerated the situation?

I do not accept that. The Daily Record responded to issues that its readers raised.

Members may not agree with our proposals for dealing with antisocial behaviour, but they should not tell the mother with a three-year-old daughter who has to climb over vomit, blood and urine every day, and has to live with threatening intimidation in the evening if she complains, that that is okay. I have met that woman. What about the family who are under constant bombardment from the family next door because they had the temerity to ask them to stop the noise from an all-night party and who have had their car tyres slashed, their children threatened and their teenagers assaulted? Do not tell them that we are exaggerating. Do not tell the young people in Shettleston who cannot use a state-of-the-art sports facility because they will be attacked by a local gang that that is a normal part of growing up—it is not.

We must challenge the culture of complacency in Scotland that leads us to accept antisocial behaviour as our lot. The issue is a big one for the Executive because we can tackle it more effectively and we will not be defeated by it. Antisocial behaviour takes many forms and has complex causes and symptoms. To respond effectively to both the symptoms and causes, we need a sustained effort across a wide front involving a range of local and national agencies. As well as tackling the consequences of antisocial behaviour, we must change behaviour. The challenge is tough, but the Executive is determined to rise to it. That is why we made tackling antisocial behaviour our first priority after the election and why we immediately set about a vigorous consultation process on the new strategy.

From the outset, we were determined that the consultation should not be the classic paper-driven exercise that does not resonate with ordinary people. During the summer, ministers went to more than 30 constituencies to talk to people on the ground. I am grateful to the MSPs who invited us to do so. We talked to people who are in the front line of dealing with antisocial behaviour; we visited specific projects and initiatives that are aimed at dealing with the consequences of such behaviour; and, above all, we listened to ordinary residents who live with the problems.

From the response, which has been strong, it is clear that people have been waiting a long time for the debate. We received hundreds of formal responses to the consultation paper, together with piles of letters, petitions and other correspondence. The responses are being analysed by independent experts whose report will be published as soon as possible, at which time we will have ample opportunity to discuss the details.

I was delighted to welcome the minister to Ayr constituency during the summer. The minister says that the response to the consultation has not yet been produced. The Executive is considering the introduction of a warden scheme in South Ayrshire, but the role for the wardens must be defined before the end of November. Does the minister agree that that is a short time scale?

I enjoyed my visit to John Scott's constituency. With all due respect to him, he raises two separate issues. The warden scheme was initiated last year and a lot of work has been done on its implementation. I will mention details of that scheme later. However, that issue is distinct from the consultation and the bill on antisocial behaviour, which will be published in the autumn. I am happy to talk to John Scott about the implementation of the warden scheme at the appropriate time.

I will highlight some of the points that came through most strongly in ministers' meetings in communities during the summer. The first of those points is the role of alcohol, and specifically under-age drinking, in fuelling antisocial behaviour. There is clear evidence that off-licences sell alcohol to young people and that adults collude in buying alcohol for young people. That is a major contributory factor to the problems that communities face every weekend and with which they are fed up.

There is an issue about off-licences selling alcohol, but does the minister recognise the problem for shop workers, who are often put under considerable pressure? Indeed, adults who go into off-licences can be subject to intimidation if they do not purchase drink for others when asked.

That is a serious issue. I ask MSPs who support strongly the action by trade unions to stop the bullying of workers to support us as we try to stop bullying in the community. That approach is entirely consistent.

As a result of ministers' work during the summer, the First Minister has announced an urgent review of the regulation of off-licences. More effective action on that issue will make a real difference to the efforts to tackle disorder and crime in our communities.

Does the minister accept that we already have rigorous laws on the sale of liquor from licensed premises, which cover the retail of alcohol to under-age people and which mean that the licence holder risks the loss of their licence? Why are those laws not implemented more rigorously?

I offer to take Annabel Goldie to meet some of the people whom I met over the summer, and I will tell her why I think more action is needed. Those people and the police will tell her that the current arrangements are not strong enough to deal with the problem. We must listen to communities and acknowledge the serious problems that exist with off-licences. The current arrangements are not working properly, but we will tackle that.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I must move on, or I will run out of time.

The second recurring theme is frustration with the time that can be taken to pursue actions through the courts or through children's hearings and with the lack of feedback to communities on actions that are taken. I am discussing with Cathy Jamieson and Peter Peacock how those issues can be tackled in the context of the work that is being undertaken to review the operation of the courts and the children's hearings system. It is important to recognise that some progress has already been made, particularly in the context of the fast-track pilots. We must give a clear signal to the communities that raised those issues that we take their concerns seriously and that we will move swiftly to address them.

Thirdly, private landlords have a role in tackling unacceptable behaviour by their tenants. It is clear that not all landlords are taking their responsibilities seriously, and that communities are fed up with that. We have to do something about that.

In addition to those specific points, a number of wider themes have come out of our many meetings and discussions. The responsible agencies need to join up their work better, and a wider range of tools is needed to deal with the problem. There needs to be wide acceptance of the need for early intervention, but strong support for tough action where that is needed to deal with persistent offenders, to provide relief to communities and to act as a deterrent to others. It is against that background that we are developing our strategy.

It is not appropriate to anticipate today the discussion of the specific proposals that we will be presenting this autumn. I will, however, take the opportunity to talk about the principles underlying our approach; to try to dispel one or two myths that have emerged in recent media comment; and to talk about delivery and resources.

We do not want simply to deal with the consequences of antisocial behaviour, and just pick up the pieces. That is not to say that sanction and reparation are not essential parts of the overall picture; they are, but they are not enough. We want to change behaviour and that is essential if we are to succeed in the longer term. To do that, we need a range of measures, including prevention, education and early intervention. In addition, we need tougher measures where patterns of unacceptable behaviour are emerging that are resistant to change through support alone. Those who argue that prevention is the answer should look to the work that the Executive is doing on it. We are doing what those people asked us to do; we are just saying that we need to go further.

Our strategy reflects that principle and is intended to promote a graduated response—a ladder of intervention. Our aim is not solely to tackle antisocial behaviour, but to promote social behaviour. We want to challenge and change behaviour that falls short of the standards that communities have a right to expect.

I repeat that our policy is not about stigmatising young people—those who think that it is misunderstand the policy. The Executive is, and has always been, clear that Scotland can be proud of the great majority of her young people, who are a credit to the country and the hope of our future. However, just as a minority of adults cause misery for their neighbours, there is a small minority of young people whose behaviour causes distress and misery for the communities in which they live, and there are gaps in the framework for dealing with them. We cannot pretend that that problem does not exist, and we cannot wish it away.

We should remind ourselves that young people are often the first victims of antisocial behaviour. As one young woman in Cumnock said to me, "It's not just old people; we're the victims. We're the ones who are afraid to walk the streets. Something needs to be done for us."

Will the minister give way?

I really must move on—I apologise.

I do not believe that it stigmatises the majority of young people if we deal effectively with the minority, any more than I believe that it stigmatises the majority of men if we take action to tackle domestic violence. As a society, we have a responsibility to give clear messages about what we will and will not tolerate, and to ensure that those messages are understood. To do nothing is to fail all our young people.

We recognise that good parenting is vital in establishing appropriate standards of behaviour. I am sure that we all understand the challenges and difficulties that face parents today—many of us face them personally. Many of us confront those challenges and will fail to meet them all, and I hope that we get the support that we need. However, we cannot be blind to the impact of some parents, who persistently and profoundly fail their children.

I emphasise the need for communities to get involved in the collective effort to tackle antisocial behaviour. Communities are in the front line in facing the problems, and they must be in the vanguard of developing the solutions. After all, those who cause the problems are often part of those communities. That is why we need to encourage greater community involvement in developing strategies for tackling antisocial behaviour; to support and protect those communities that are facing problems; and to make agencies responsive, and ultimately accountable, to the communities that they serve.

Over the summer, there has been a lot of debate about our consultation paper. That is very welcome: the fuller the discussion, the better. However, some of the comments that have been made about our proposals have muddied the waters. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have arisen. Some people have said that our proposals would mean sending more young people to secure accommodation. That is not true. Secure accommodation is, and will have to remain, an option for the very small core of serious, persistent offenders who refuse to modify their offending behaviour.

I am interested in that point. Does the minister accept that, if secure accommodation is to serve as a penalty against people who breach antisocial behaviour orders and electronic tagging orders, demand for secure accommodation could increase? The Executive has a responsibility to say how that potential extra demand would be met.

The Executive has made its position clear. We are increasing the secure estate by a third, from 96 to 125 places, and we are increasing, through the intensive support fund, the number of places that are available through alternatives to secure accommodation by 105. I think that Nicola Sturgeon misunderstands the point. We intend to introduce a range of measures aimed at tackling behaviour before it reaches that degree of seriousness. That is why our principles are important. Those measures will provide new opportunities for young people to change, before it is too late. We will never solve the problem by saying that everything can be achieved through secure accommodation. Our measures should mean that fewer young people will face a future in secure accommodation—with all the consequences that that can entail.

Some people have suggested that we are proposing to jail parents. That is just not true. We are proposing, however, to introduce parenting orders to deal with those parents whose persistent neglect is a contributory factor in their children's offending behaviour. If anything emerged consistently from the responses of stakeholders and victims to our consultation in the summer, it was the need to involve parents more. We cannot simply ignore the terrible damage that bad parenting can cause. If parenting orders help to avoid even a few cases of young people being taken into care, that is good enough. For one or two parents who still refuse to face their responsibilities under an order, imprisonment could be the ultimate sanction, but the needs of the young person and their wider families would always be taken into account when such a decision was made. We think that the deterrent effect and the consequences of inaction make parenting orders worth considering.

There has been some discussion about police powers. We asked in the consultation whether the police needed a new, explicit power to deal with groups of people causing problems for residents in areas with a history of serious and persistent antisocial behaviour. We heard a wide range of views over the summer. Initially, police organisations expressed the view that the existing general powers were sufficient; communities and others, including some front-line police officers, were less convinced.

There is a general feeling in communities that existing action is not effective. We remain of the view that, in principle, and in certain circumstances, it would be useful to have a tightly targeted power to allow the police more effectively to disperse groups from particular hot spots, so that residents could have at least some temporary respite. We want to work with the police to devise a practical proposal to that end. We do not intend, and never have intended, to introduce a sweeping or indiscriminate new power. We do not want to undermine good relations between police and communities—we do not want to reinvent the wheel. We are, however, determined to ensure that there is an effective way of dealing with acute situations.

I turn now to delivery and resources. Our strategy recognises three simple, fundamental truths. First, there are no miracle solutions or overnight cures. We believe that our focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and the impetus that we want to create will deliver early benefits. It would be foolish, however, to pretend that we can eradicate a deep-seated problem with the wave of a magic wand. We are currently at the first stage of an action plan for the whole of the second session of the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, an effective solution will require more effective joined-up working by a range of agencies, and we will ensure that they engage in that. Antisocial behaviour is not a problem that the police can solve alone, and the police would be the first to say that. We need the local authorities, the courts, the hearings, social work departments and youth organisations to work together. That is why local strategies, information sharing and joint working are essential and why we will work extremely hard with all our partners to make that a reality.

Thirdly, we recognise that there will be resource implications. Those who say that resources are the answer should look at the considerable resources that have been spent. We already spend a huge amount of money on policies that contribute—directly or indirectly—to tackling antisocial behaviour. We need to ensure that the money is put to best effect and we will work hard to ensure that it is.

However, we accept that more is needed. We have made available £30 million over the next two years for community wardens and other local authority initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour. As John Scott mentioned, authorities have just submitted outline bids on how they propose to use the money, and an announcement will be made on that shortly. In addition, we will provide an extra £30 million over the next two years to strengthen action on the ground. That is a considerable investment and it is proper that communities will want to see the outcome of that investment.

That is not all. We have set aside an additional £35 million over the next two years for action that falls within Cathy Jamieson's portfolio. That will provide the additional infrastructure that is needed to support our strategy of prevention and sanction. We will decide the detailed allocation of those funds as we develop our strategy and specific proposals in the light of the consultation process. We are putting new money—as well as existing investment—where our mouth is.

The minister has not mentioned anything about putting money into community centres. Will there be any money for those?

There are many details that I have not mentioned in my speech, which has been very general. I could spend a lot of time listing all our investments, but I would need a number of hours to do that. Considerable investment is being given to local authorities for a range of local services, including community centres.

Will the minister give way?

No. Let me go on.

Let me emphasise one key point. I believe that the consultation process and the bill that will follow will mark a significant step forward. They will fill gaps in the legal framework for dealing with antisocial behaviour, strengthen local involvement and joined-up working and ensure that individuals and agencies are given a fair opportunity to meet their responsibilities while also being held accountable. They will provide a sound platform for delivery.

I conclude by echoing what was said by many of those who were consulted: "At last, the Parliament is dealing with the issues that it should. Just get on with it." I suggest that that is what the Parliament should do.

I welcome the opportunity to debate at some length the problem of antisocial behaviour. There is no doubt that antisocial behaviour is the area of policy in which the Executive's talk is toughest. As tough talk raises expectations in the communities that are daily affected by antisocial behaviour, it is important that the policy is closely scrutinised.

We all know that antisocial behaviour is a problem. The statistics—such as they are—speak for themselves. Breaches of the peace, petty assaults, vandalism and fire-raising are all offences that are on the increase. Of course, a lot of antisocial behaviour goes completely unreported. That is because often the most pernicious effect of such behaviour is that it intimidates and disempowers individuals and entire communities and instils in them a sense of utter hopelessness.

None of us should need statistics to tell us of the misery that is inflicted by antisocial behaviour. We know from our experience in our constituencies that antisocial behaviour destroys communities and turns the lives of too many individuals into a living hell. The Executive is right to make the issue a priority. It is time to give the decent law-abiding majority the support that they need to reclaim their communities.

However, if we are to be successful in doing that, and if the tough talk is to be translated into effective action, it is important that we all have a proper understanding of the nature of the problem—both of its causes and of its effects. It is only from that understanding that we will develop solutions that are likely to contribute to the safer more secure communities in which we all want everyone in Scotland to have the opportunity to live.

I want to make a number of preliminary points about the nature of the problem before turning to address some of the specific possible solutions. We know that the term antisocial behaviour covers a multitude of sins. It covers everything from intimidation to playing loud music and from lack of respect for the physical environment through to violence and abusive behaviour. There is no single problem of antisocial behaviour, so it stands to reason that there can be no single solution.

Determining whether particular conduct amounts to antisocial behaviour inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity. Some things are obviously antisocial behaviour, but others are less obviously so. Behaviour that might cause genuine fear or alarm to one person could be water off a duck's back to someone else. Often, behaviour that is not in itself objectionable and is in no way criminal is nevertheless intimidating and disruptive to others.

For example, a group of kids hanging around a bus stop may be doing no one any harm. They may simply be doing what young people do, but they may still make the old lady feel nervous about walking past them. I do not suggest that we should ignore the old lady's fears—far from it. If the effects of antisocial behaviour are to be tackled effectively, we must have regard not only to the nature of the behaviour but to its impact on other people.

Does the member agree that one reason why the old lady may be frightened of the young person is that she may have seen half a dozen other young people who were intimidating without anything apparently happening to them?

That might or might not be the case, but I will come on to that point.

In incidents such as the one that I have outlined, the behaviour is not always the thing that we should have a go at. We need to consider the environment in which the otherwise harmless conduct becomes intimidating for the old lady. I think that that is the point that Johann Lamont made. For example, the old lady might not feel so bad walking past the kids if she knew that there was a regular police patrol in the area that could do something about antisocial behaviour if it occurred.

I share the concern that has been expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that the proposals to give police the power to disperse groups of young people might be both unnecessary and counterproductive. They might be unnecessary because if the kids are committing offences, drinking, shouting, swearing and being abusive, the police already have the power to move them on. The police should have no hesitation in using that power. If the power is not being used, we should want to know why. If the kids are committing no offence, having the police on their backs might serve only to alienate them from the police and from society as a whole.

I will wait to see what the tightly targeted measures to which the minister referred amount to. Surely, if the problem is not the behaviour itself but the perception of that behaviour by others—which might feel very real—we should concentrate on making the others feel more secure and less intimidated. Among other things, that means more police on the streets of our communities.

On the subject of young people, other points must be emphasised. Not all people who display antisocial behaviour are young. In my experience, most of them are not young. However, if all that people knew about antisocial behaviour was what they read in the consultation paper, that fact might pass them by. Not all young people behave antisocially; only a tiny minority do so. Many more young people are victims of antisocial behaviour than will ever behave antisocially.

We should remember those facts. The minister is getting a bit jumpy in her seat, but it is important that we point out those matters. We should not stigmatise all young people—either deliberately or as the result of lazy over-generalisations—because of the behaviour of a minority.

Will the member tell us which recommendations in the consultation paper stigmatise young people? Can she not see the rest of the work that we are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour on a community basis?

I will come on to all those points, but I say that what runs the risk of stigmatising all young people is the rhetoric that the minister and her colleagues have indulged in all summer about young people and the problems that they cause. [Interruption.] No. I agree that we need to get tough on the tiny minority, but—

Will the member give way?

No, let me finish. I seem to have struck a raw nerve among those on the Executive benches.

The important point that I want to make—some members would do well to listen for a minute—is that if we continue to indulge in that rhetoric, we run the risk of alienating a whole generation from the society in which we want them to play a responsible and constructive part.

In her speech, the Minister for Communities laid out clearly that we are talking about a ladder of interventions to divert young people from trouble in the first place, deal effectively with those who get into trouble and, yes, tackle that very small group of young people at the sharp end. That is absolutely what the communities that we represent expect us to do.

I accept that, but the points that I am making require to be emphasised because this is the first time that I have heard the minister articulate the idea in such terms.

If we spread the blame among all young people, the minority who are responsible and whom we should—

Will the member give way?

No. I have been quite generous although I might take some more interventions later. Labour members should just calm down.

If we blame all young people, the young people who are responsible will get off the hook. If we limit our wrath to kids, the many adults who cause misery will also escape responsibility. I realise that that might make it harder for all of us to formulate easy soundbites or grab the tabloid headlines, but if we are to get anywhere, we must understand the problem in all its complexity and be aware that we need to have a range of measures that can be used by local authorities, the police, the courts and other agencies as appropriate. We do not need politicians vying with one another to see who can talk toughest. All ministers, particularly the First Minister, would do well to bear that in mind.

I turn to some of the specific measures proposed in the consultation paper. Some have said that the consultation paper concentrates too much on enforcement and not enough on the kind of support and intervention that is needed in order to change behaviour. I do not agree with that, but we have to get the balance right. Local authorities, the police and other agencies must get the support that they need so that they can develop effective methods of preventing antisocial behaviour.

There are many reasons for antisocial behaviour, but there are no excuses for it, because there are no excuses for making other people's lives a misery. There are reasons, such as poverty, bad housing, poor diet, and low educational attainment. Effort must be directed at tackling those underlying causes as well as the effects of antisocial behaviour. That is where the consultation paper is at its weakest although I accept that there are other initiatives and consultations that might cover some of those points.

We must acknowledge that some people, albeit a tiny minority, behave badly and offend for no understandable reason but simply because they have no regard for their communities, their neighbours or their environment. All the support in the world might not make a difference to those people. For that minority, there must be effective measures to enforce good behaviour, punish bad behaviour and, in appropriate circumstances, deliver restoration for the communities and individuals affected.

Many of the proposals in the consultation paper are uncontroversial and deserve support. If the minister started listening, she might welcome that support. We support the sensible and commonsense measures in the consultation paper, such as community reparation orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, the greater involvement of communities in the development of strategies, banning the sale of spray paint to under-16s and tougher action against landlords.

Other measures merit more discussion, although that is not to say that we will not support them. I am not opposed to the idea of extending antisocial behaviour orders to under-16s because it could be a useful part of a bigger package of measures. However, we must be careful not to see the measure as a panacea. ASBOs as they already apply to adults have been a largely ineffective measure in combating antisocial behaviour.

It is amazing to hear some of the misinformation that Nicola Sturgeon has given this morning. She should accept some of the responsibility for the misinformation that has been carried in the press. In relation to ASBOs, she is in danger of giving more misinformation. Will she acknowledge the success of ASBOs and interim ASBOs as operated by some councils? For example, in North Lanarkshire, the council, working with communities, has had real success with ASBOs and people have seen that ASBOs are working to protect them in their local areas.

The member made the point that I was going to make. ASBOs are successful in some local authority areas, but not all local authority areas make use of them. For example, only three have been applied for and granted in Glasgow, which is astonishing. ASBOs take a long time to be granted or rejected, although I accept that interim orders might make a difference to that.

Perhaps it is because only local authorities and other registered social landlords can apply for ASBOs that in some local authority areas ASBOs tend to be used only for housing-related antisocial behaviour. I note that the consultation paper has ruled out extending the right of application to other agencies, but it does not give reasons for that. I am interested in debating that issue because there should be more consideration given to it, especially if ASBOs are to be extended to cover under-16s. Young people are more likely to behave antisocially in the street than in their houses, and local authorities might not always be the best-placed agency to apply for ASBOs in such cases.

Court orders should not be seen simply as a way of controlling behaviour. They should always be accompanied by support—I am referring specifically to one of the questions in the consultation paper. There should always be support that is aimed at changing behaviour.

Electronic tagging is undoubtedly one of the most controversial proposals in the paper. As with the extension of ASBOs, I am not opposed to it.

I will ask the member the same question that I asked her earlier but, for the record, I have to say that her insulting behaviour is no substitute for argument. What specifically does the member think that we are doing to stigmatise young people?

I bow to the master of insulting behaviour. I have answered her question. The rhetoric of the minister and her colleagues during the past few weeks is a specific action that has stigmatised young people. I am sorry if she does not understand that, but maybe she can go away and think about it.

Will the member give way?

No. If the minister would just sit down and listen, she might find that the debate is a bit more instructive.

Answer the question.

I have answered the question. The minister's rhetoric stigmatises young people. What part of my answer does she not understand?

I do not oppose electronic tagging in principle, but children should be tagged only as a last resort. There should be more clarity about the circumstances in which tagging will be used.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am running out of time. I have been more than generous with interventions and I hope that the Presiding Officer will take account of that.

But of course.

The consultation paper gives two options on electronic tagging: first, that it will be an alternative to secure accommodation; and secondly, that it will be used in support of intervention measures. Those options should not be mutually exclusive. No child should be tagged simply as a way of controlling their behaviour. Any child who has their liberty restricted in that way must be provided with support so that they can change. We must never write off a young person by sticking a tag on them and hoping that the problem will go away.

The Scottish National Party has already expressed its concern that community wardens amount to little more than policing on the cheap.

Will the member give way?

I have allowed almost every member in the chamber to intervene and I am sorry if Mr Henry was not one of them.

The member is out of tune with her SNP colleagues.

Order.

It will not be the first time that I have been out of tune with some of my SNP colleagues.

We believe that the £20 million that is earmarked for community wardens would be better spent employing the 400 extra police officers that that money would fund. If community wardens are to be successful, they will only be so if they have the trust of the communities. To give them enforcement powers, as suggested in the consultation paper, will put them into what the Scottish Police Federation described at the joint meeting of the justice committees this week as "confrontational situations". We should not expect community wardens to do the job of police officers. If we want more police officers, we should pay for them; it is as simple as that.

Antisocial behaviour in our communities is a problem created by a minority and tough action should be targeted at that minority. By action, I mean effective action and not just the rhetoric of which the Executive has been guilty. Effective action will marry prevention with punishment and restoration, and will make life better for people in every community in Scotland. In this area more than any other, tough talk is easy. The difficult bit is living up to the tough talk and that is how the Executive will be judged. We will give the proposals a fair wind, but we expect action and not rhetoric, because action is what people in communities all over Scotland expect and deserve.

This debate is aptly entitled. Can there be many more antisocial, anti-fruitful or anti-functional forms of parliamentary proceedings than occupying MSPs for a whole day with no motion to address, no opportunity to lodge amendments reflecting different views and no vote to decide anything anyway? That is not a snide pop at you, Presiding Officer, because the topic is hugely important. It is a genuine comment on whether time in the chamber is being used for qualitative purposes or simply just to pass the time.

On the matter of antisocial behaviour and the current consultation process, the public may want to ask why the Scottish Executive seeks views on 21 proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour when we lack adequate policing and prosecuting resource to enforce existing laws. The public will certainly want to ask why politicians are wasting time talking instead of using time to do something. The Minister for Communities talks about a graduated approach and a ladder of intervention. She should tell that to the fed-up communities, the frustrated victims and the frightened pensioners who want action now.

I am surprised that Annabel Goldie holds that view. The Parliament is about consulting people and bringing power closer to the people. Far from folk saying that they are fed up with the length of the consultation, people in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have eagerly taken part in the consultation exercise and have welcomed the opportunity that the Executive has given them to have a say on an issue that has gone on long enough. That is something that we should do more often; we should consult people on how to tackle problems that are deep-rooted in our communities.

I should also make it clear that this is the second of the looser debates that should encourage more conversation and more dialogue between members of this Parliament, and we should judge it as such.

Well, let that dialogue begin, Presiding Officer. I think that Cathie Craigie has misunderstood the objective of my criticism. I do not fault the consultation process or the undoubted desire of people in Scotland to play a part in it. However, as everyone here has been elected to take action, I question whether a debate such as this is the most sensible use of parliamentary time for a whole day. I am expressing a personal opinion, and clearly the Presiding Officer will have his own views on that, but I think that anyone watching these proceedings so far might have a degree of sympathy with what I am saying.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it the function of this debate to resolve a procedural issue about how the Parliament's time should be spent? I believe that it was agreed to hold debates such as this at the instigation of the Procedures Committee. If there is an issue, should that not be discussed and resolved elsewhere, rather than taking up time for debating antisocial behaviour?

You are quite correct, Mr Henry.

I shall continue, Presiding Officer.

On their pre-election crusade, Executive ministers may have become latter-day converts to addressing antisocial behaviour, but the rest of us have been living in the real world for slightly longer. It is a real world inhabited by vandalism, graffiti, deliberate damage to property, the dumping of rubbish and litter, drunken and abusive behaviour, drug abuse, intimidation, harassment, nuisance from vehicles and sporadic acts of fire-raising. The question that has to be asked and which the Executive really needs to answer is, where has the Executive been? Antisocial behaviour did not just happen in the past few months. There has been an escalating situation—

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I have taken a significant number of interventions so far and I need to make some progress.

How can it be that the Executive has presided over a situation in which, in 2002, there were 94,924 acts of fire-raising and vandalism in Scotland, which is 20 per cent higher than in 1999, when the Executive took charge? Even more depressingly, the clear-up rate for those acts in 2002 was only 22 per cent.

Antisocial behaviour is not some manifestation that came winging out of the ether in April this year, which is when the Executive seemed to stagger into awareness of what was happening. It has been there and has been getting worse. With latter-day converts, the danger is that the zeal of the conversion induces an ardour of passion to do things, to blame people, to see ogres and demons where none exists and to be utterly blind to such presences where they do exist. The Executive, predictably, has behaved true to form.

Let us start with the urge to do things. There has been positively frenzied activity over the summer. The strategy for tackling antisocial behaviour was put out to consultation on 26 June. Ministers, with commendable nobility, gave up their summer recesses to race across Scotland visiting communities and discovering the novelty of listening, and of listening as they had never listened before, so we are told. It is no surprise that the consultation document has 21 proposals covering a multiplicity of activity, but there is one interesting omission. There is no considered analysis of existing law, whether that law is being adequately enforced and whether the range of powers available to courts, children's panels and social work departments is currently being fully deployed. Nicola Sturgeon has already alluded to that to some extent.

My first criticism of that frenzied activity is that the Executive did not do the one thing that it ought to have done. I am not alone in holding that view. Julia Kennedy, antisocial behaviour manager at the City of Edinburgh Council, said:

"It is pretty hopeless introducing even more legal mechanisms and blocking up the system even more, if you can't get the ones you already have working as efficiently as you could."

Miss Goldie has given us an interesting quotation. She will know that Julia Kennedy now works for the Glasgow Housing Association, which has made an interesting submission to the consultation paper. I met Julia Kennedy, who commended me strongly for the proposals that we have introduced. Does Miss Goldie recognise that?

In that case, the minister needs to discuss Julia Kennedy's use of language with her. To me, what Julia Kennedy said does not reflect a very warm view of the proposals in the consultation document. She is not alone. Grainia Long, the parliamentary officer for Shelter Scotland, whom the minister may have met in some other manifestation, has said:

"There are already enough legal remedies to deal with anti-social behaviour—the Executive's own research shows that. What we see now are quick solutions that were presented before the election. We already have anti-social behaviour orders, which are very positive, but we are moving away from what is necessary."

I would like to pick up on a point that Cathie Craigie made about antisocial behaviour orders during Nicola Sturgeon's speech. Between 1 April 1999 and 30 November 2001, only 127 antisocial behaviour orders were granted, many taking a very long time to be conferred by the court. Let us not get carried away by the dream that they are an instant solution to the problem.

Let me now consider the second trap for the zealous convert: blaming people. The Scottish Executive, as is clear from the proposals, is pinning a significant amount of blame for antisocial behaviour on young people. It proposes to

"encourage wider use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts for children and their parents … extend Anti-Social Behaviour Orders to those aged 12 to 15 … strengthen the range of options available to Children's Hearings for dealing with cases of anti-social behaviour … introduce flexible Parenting Orders … extend the availability of electronic monitoring for under-16s … ban the sale of spray paint to under-16s",

and, with reference to under-age drinking, it proposes to

"give the police tougher powers to enter and close licensed premises."

With reference to her response to my earlier intervention, I have to tell the minister, as someone whose family ran licensed premises for many years, that the greatest fear my parents had as licensees was that they might lose their licence because of breaching the law in relation to the terms and conditions under which the licence was granted.

I am sure that, because of her interest in the recommendations of the Nicholson report, Miss Goldie will be aware of the criticism that it takes too long to deal with such circumstances and that there should be powers to deal much more quickly with premises where there are problems. I see one of her colleagues nodding.

There are two issues. One is the current system of granting liquor licences, which is a local authority responsibility. The other is enforcement by police of the law as it stands. Many existing crimes and offences by licensees or by other people acting under their authority and instruction can be dealt with, but the police have to be on hand to be alert to offences that may be taking place.

Not for one moment do I think that all young people under 16 are law-abiding little angels—some are not—but neither do I accept that the predominant perpetrators of antisocial behaviour are such young people. Much of the behaviour so rightly deplored by people in communities throughout Scotland, and graphically referred to by the Minister for Communities, is attributable to people over 16. When the Executive's woolly analysis descends to such dubious populism as giving the police power to disperse young people just because there is a group of them, I think that we are getting into very dangerous territory. Young people are as entitled to their freedom as anyone else is, and only if they are committing an offence should the police intervene. Otherwise, politicians are becoming no more than the licensed harriers of young people, with the police as hapless intermediaries. That is a recipe for festering resentment.

Of course, if those young people—or any group of persons—are committing an offence, before they can be dealt with under the existing law the police, rather than sitting remotely, have to be there to deal with the matter. The Executive clearly had no difficulty in conjuring up ogres and demons where none existed but, disturbingly, has been blind to where the real ogres and demons exist, which is in the failure to resource the police adequately and let them be a neighbourhood presence, responsive to local needs and demands, and in the failure to resource the prosecution facility adequately, to ensure that crimes that are detected by the police are prosecuted.

I want to be clear about Annabel Goldie's position. Is she saying that we are exaggerating the extent of antisocial behaviour—through the mythical ogres that she says we are creating—and that she disagrees with the actions that we are taking? Does she honestly think that a police officer on every street in Scotland could solve all the problems? Does she think that policing is the only solution? Does she think that we are exaggerating the problem?

The minister has misunderstood what I identified as an ogre and a demon. As will be clear from the Official Report, the lack of adequate policing is an ogre and a demon. Antisocial behaviour is a huge problem. Like other members, I have been the victim of antisocial behaviour. When such behaviour has been dealt with, it is the local accessibility of the police that has been the sole determining factor in enabling it to be dealt with. I recently referred to the compelling example offered by neighbourhood policing in New York. When police are part of, are known to and work with the community, crime is more readily detected, criminal activity is more effectively deterred, and the willingness of members of the public to report and be witnesses in the prosecution of crime is more pronounced.

My party has costed and demonstrated where we would find £25 million of new money to be made available to police forces as a supplement to police grant. In addition, we would give the police access to the £20 million allocated to the wardens scheme within the securing safe communities fund to facilitate neighbourhood policing. That alone would dramatically cut antisocial behaviour, without requiring consideration of even one of the 21 proposals in the consultation document. Doug Keil, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, is quoted as saying:

"From everything we know and understand about the public's desires, there is no call for community wardens. There is no public call, there is no police call. The call is for additional police officers."

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I have to make progress. I am getting near the end of my remarks.

The call is for additional police officers. Doug Keil said that the proposals—£20 million for community wardens—

"will not put an extra uniformed officer in the street and that is a missed opportunity."

In considering whether the police, the prosecution services, children's panels and courts, if fully resourced, need additional powers, the Executive is once again ambivalent. Having raised its hands in horror at the prospect of electronic tagging being extended to under-16s, the Executive is apparently now at ease with proposing it. Of the 21 proposals, that is one that my party does support. However, it must not be used as an alternative to placing young criminals in secure accommodation, if that is deemed the most suitable way of dealing with the worst offenders.

There are other disposals that could be considered. Weekend and evening detention, community service, and supervised attendance orders all need to be explored.

Presiding Officer, I have been very generous with interventions—

I have been very generous with your time.

One of the most important influences in dealing with young offenders is early intervention. I think that the minister and I are in agreement on that. Before the Executive clutters up the statute book with new laws and burdens all our agencies with new responsibilities and obligations, all requiring more resource from the Executive, will it carry out a radical assessment of what laws are currently available that are not being used, and consider how the existing agencies can better be used? That will result in a dramatically improved capacity to deal with antisocial behaviour.

I welcome the chance to debate the important issue of antisocial behaviour on an occasion when individuals and parties can set out their stall, their philosophy and their attitude, and we are not tied down to piddling motions and amendments.

Everyone in the chamber agrees that antisocial behaviour is a problem and that we want to improve the quality of life in our communities. The dispute is over how we achieve that. The Executive has done some good things already, and there are some more good things in "Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-social Behaviour". I pay tribute to Margaret Curran, who gave a good speech today and who is open to intelligent discussion on the subject—that can be rare in politics. However, Ms Curran and her colleagues have still to produce the bill. I am sure that all members will scrutinise the bill carefully, because often good intentions come to a sticky end in the wording of a bill.

That debate is for another day, however. Today, we are discussing the whole policy issue and why people behave as they do. I will show my open-mindedness and innovative spirit and, for the first time, quote Tony Blair, who said, "Are we being tough enough on the causes of crime?"

There is one word that I hope will not characterise my speech or the debate but which characterises the issue: boredom. Young people are bored and get into trouble. They either do bad things or they just wander about in groups, not really doing anything wrong but still causing some sort of harassment to others. We must consider, therefore, why those causes of problems exist and then balance preventive measures against punitive measures.

I agree that we have to consider the causes of crime. Let us consider the example of domestic abuse. While it is interesting to discuss why somebody behaves in that way—we address that through questions of attitude and so on—we still want the behaviour to stop. The big shift in relation to domestic abuse is the recognition that, while we might wonder why somebody abuses, the first priority is to ensure that the woman in that situation is protected and that the abuse stops.

We certainly have to take that action, but we also have to change the attitudes of lots of men; otherwise, the abuse will continue, and in future other men will batter other women. I am not saying that we do not need the punitive side, which is absolutely essential, especially for the small minority, but we also need the preventive side—that is, to create a society in which fewer people get into trouble and groups of young people have something to do.

The Executive has put more money into various good things in the community but, despite that, my impression is that there are fewer facilities for communities and young people—whether youth clubs, football pitches, swimming pools, or any sort of outlet for young people's legitimate activity—than there were 10 or 20 years ago. The Executive must reverse a big tide that is going in the wrong direction. We must invest not only in facilities but in people. We need people to run things. It is no good producing a nice all-weather football pitch if there are no adults to organise youth teams and to get things going. If we are to help people to help themselves, we need good people, whether they are volunteers or paid.

We also need to listen more to what young people want. There is no point in spending a lot of money on one facility if what young people really want is something else. Many of them want a simple, indoor place where they can gather and chat and which does not necessarily need to be in ritzy accommodation. We should listen to the community and, in particular, to young people, and provide them with what they want.

Does the member acknowledge that such facilities exist in many communities but that a small minority of young people still choose not to use them and, for whatever reason, cause havoc in local communities?

Yes. I agree that that is the case with the small minority that causes much of the trouble, but if better facilities were available, many young people would use them and not cause trouble. If no indoor place is available, people wander about the streets, because there is nothing else to do.

The Minister for Communities said that the Executive has invested money, but if we are to reverse the tendency to close facilities—which takes us in the wrong direction—serious money needs to be invested. We also need to invest in developing existing successful schemes that help people not to get into trouble or which sort them out if they are in a bit of trouble so that they do not get into worse trouble and end up in jail.

The gamut of schemes to tackle offending behaviour as early as possible costs money. Those schemes will repay that investment, but not immediately. They will tackle many of the people who would, unfortunately, get into worse trouble if left alone, but who would not get into such trouble if they were sorted out. However, hard-core offenders must be dealt with differently.

The member said that he agreed that a twin-track approach was needed with preventive work and punitive measures. Will he give us an idea of his thoughts on the punitive side of the approach?

Yes. I will give members one or two thoughts about that, but I will concentrate on the background to the problem. We must examine how the issue relates to families and communities. We are focusing on possible punishment of people who get into trouble, but we must consider the whole of life, including nursery education and support for families. Even before children go into nursery education, we must consider support for parents who do not know how to parent. More support is needed for advice to prevent partnerships from breaking down. More thought must be given to what happens in schools, and more youth clubs and similar organisations need to be provided. Early intervention is required. We must consider training for jobs and whether that should start with people aged 14. Job prospects are another factor. People need hope, and many communities do not have hope.

We need enough social workers. It is not popular for politicians to say that we need more social workers, but we really do need them. There is no point in having a nice children's panel system if not enough social workers are available to deliver what a children's panel says should happen with young people.

We also need to deal with alcohol. I have bored people endlessly about alcohol, so I will not go on, but that is a serious aspect to the situation. Drugs are another aspect. A range of Government, local government and other activities in the community must be brought together to deal with the problem.

Does the member agree that, in many circumstances, joint support teams in schools and children's panels are left toothless because not enough facilities or social workers are available? Often, their recommendations cannot be implemented because local authorities will not pay for alternative placements for young people in places that are not secure establishments, but which are good establishments that do good work with families and young people and eventually bring those young people back to school with support. Local authorities use few of those places.

Could we have a question, please?

Instead of all the punitive stuff that we are hearing about, it would be better to focus on education and what we do with our young people in school.

Yes. That is what I was saying. There is not enough support to ensure that the disposals that children's panels propose are implemented.

We must consider the family as a unit. Roughly half of the young people who are in trouble have been in residential care—because of family break-up, I presume—and roughly half have a family member who is or has been in prison. We must consider the family as a whole and not focus only on the young person. Various people who are knowledgeable about such work have suggested that if we had intensive work with the hardline, small minority of young people who cause a huge percentage of the trouble and if we gave resources to individuals who work hard with those young people, we would make better progress.

On that point and in relation to Rosemary Byrne's comment, does the member accept that the Executive has recognised that issue? As part of the 10-point action plan on youth crime, we have invested £9 million over four years in intensive support places for projects such as those to which Donald Gorrie referred and £11.9 million over four years in a youth crime prevention fund to do such diversionary work. This summer, £1 million from the justice budget was provided to community safety partnerships.

I accept that. As I said, the Executive is doing many good things. However, I question whether what it does is adequate to deal with the problem. As the Minister for Justice suggested, if we focus resources on people to do heavy work—not necessarily in residential accommodation, but in the community—to sort out those who are in trouble, that will work with quite a lot of people.

I do not know how to say tactfully that Mr Blunkett is a problem for the Executive. Many people in Britain think that some of the Westminster Government's proposals are not well thought out and could be troublesome. They might transfer those thoughts to the Scottish Executive, which I am sure has much more enlightened views. It is important that we are not seen to copy the worst aspects at Westminster.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry; the member is in his last minute.

Licensing law reform has been mentioned and is important. I hope that we will proceed with that.

I will make a final constructive suggestion. As we have a chief inspector of prisons, we need an inspector of non-prisons—of all the schemes that help to keep people out of prison. We need not a person to run all those schemes, but a person to inspect and co-ordinate them and to spread good practice. Those schemes are not coherent. People in one scheme do not seem to know what is happening elsewhere.

We must create communities with cohesion, which has been lost in many communities. We must talk to one another in our communities. It is clear that different groups of the population do not talk to one another and demonise one another. At least we in the Parliament talk to one another, even if what we say is not always all that brilliant.

The essence of dealing with the problem lies in creating communities with which people are happy and where people have self-esteem and esteem for their communities. The result will be much less trouble, which must nevertheless be dealt with when it occurs.

Nicola Sturgeon mentioned fear and I will speak more about it. Fear is at the heart of the issue. On Monday, I and other members of the Communities Committee went to Stirling as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Executive's proposed antisocial behaviour bill. We spoke with people about their fear of going out on the streets at night, of speaking to strangers on local streets and even of knocking on a neighbour's door. Their lives were made a misery by fear, as much as by the reality of the situation.

What is the fear? Where does it come from? How proportionate is it? As a society, we are becoming more accustomed to living in fear. We allow our television screens and our newspapers to engulf us in fear. The ideas of neighbours from hell and child crime waves have almost become clichés, but the hype of the fear is not limited to antisocial behaviour. How many more times must I see clips of police officers in biohazard suits marching through the empty streets of London? How many more times will those clips be reused, usually as moving wallpaper to a report on what is called the international terror threat? The clips never come with a disclaimer explaining that the image was nothing other than a little propaganda exercise. If one paid attention to our news media, one might be forgiven for thinking that the country was under regular attack from deadly biological weapons.

Of course, that activity is taking place in the aftermath of a war that was justified, at least half of the time, on the basis of fear. Should we not fear a vicious dictator with weapons of mass destruction—sorry, let me put that another way—weapons programmes, or evidence of programmes, or the potential capacity of the vicious dictator to pretend not to have quite got rid of all of his programmes?

I am sure that Patrick Harvie will move on to talk about the meeting that we had in Stirling on Monday, where people told us that some of the fear that they felt was real. People could not get into or out of their own homes because of their fear of the actions of an antisocial neighbour. I am aware that he is dealing with the exaggerated aspect of fear, but can we move on to discuss the real fears of people in our communities?

The point that I want to make is that the perception and the reality of fear are not always the same. In a few moments, I will move on to address aspects of the reality of fear.

I have dealt with that point. I want to move on.

Will the member give way?

I will take a quick intervention.

What should be done when, even if physical violence is not involved, the perception of intimidation and harassment is real?

As I said, I will move on to address that point in a few moments.

Another incident in which fear and reality did not coincide happened yesterday in the chamber when an MSP was almost shouted out of the chamber for expressing the fears of a community. Our response to that was the right one. It is important that politicians give a lead, and I hope that Mary Mulligan remembers saying yesterday:

"We know that people have fears, but we should answer those fears and tell people what the reality is, not feed their fears."—[Official Report, 1 October 2003; c 2233.]

I will remember those words, which related to fears about people with mental health problems and which I found sincere and profoundly important. I only wish that such thoughtful leadership was evident on the issue of antisocial behaviour.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

It is not for us simply to express the fears that are expressed by others and, in so doing, to endorse them. It is for us to challenge fears where they are unfounded and to confront them where they are real.

As I said, I want to move on.

I have no doubt that some of those fears are well founded. I have no doubt that there is behaviour that could rightly be called antisocial; I see it on my streets on a daily basis. I also have no doubt that that behaviour has a profoundly damaging effect on communities and individuals. I did not need to go to Stirling to find that out, although the visit gave me a new and useful perspective on the issue.

Not just hundreds, but millions of Scots are in agreement with the Executive that something must be done. However, their agreement does not justify the assumption that anything will do. The measures that will work are those that are designed to support people to change their unacceptable behaviour rather than those that stigmatise and brutalise them, and the measures that will do more in the long term are those that are designed to get to the root of the problem.

We need resources to develop quality facilities and pleasant local environments that are fun to be in, to enforce existing laws and powers, to make existing systems function as they should and to replace the substandard housing stock that causes the forced intimacy that was at the heart of many of the complaints that we heard about in Stirling's Cultenhove area on Monday. We also need resources to support people at the times in their lives when they feel vulnerable, in need of help and alone.

Some of those measures are being implemented, and credit is due to the Executive for taking that action. However, the impact of some of the measures that are being contemplated risks undoing some of that work. The emphasis on control rather than support flies in the face of what is working in Scotland today. Although that emphasis is unfortunate, there is time to change it. I hope that, when the Executive introduces the antisocial behaviour legislation, it will be open to constructive amendments from all sides of the chamber.

I cannot help but be cynical about the Executive's motivation behind the debate. If I thought that it was genuine in its attempts to improve life in the schemes, I would be the first to applaud it. I fear, however, that the Executive's motivation is more about play acting. It wants to sound tough because the spin-doctors and focus-group team leaders say that that plays well with the Daily Record's readership. They tell the Executive to exaggerate the scale of the problem, but not to address the underlying causes; to stigmatise Scotland's youngsters, especially some of the most vulnerable and damaged in society; to speckle a fistful of dollars over enforcement agencies; and to walk away. If that is the Executive's motivation, it is shameful. However, only time will tell.

Will the member give way?

I will give way to the minister in a second.

Doubtless, the Scottish Socialist Party will be portrayed in the debate by ministers and deputy ministers as bleeding heart liberals. Nonetheless, we will focus on the underlying causes of the problems that arise, because things happen for a reason. The Scottish Socialist Party champions communities, not only because we believe in them but because we live in them, we understand them and we try to mobilise them.

I live in the Inch. The Minister for Communities talked about her visit to south Edinburgh during the summer.

Just a second—I anticipated that the deputy minister might want to speak to me.

The Minister for Communities said that people told her, "The Parliament needs to listen and take on board the views of local people in communities." Why does she not say that she will take on board the views of our communities on other issues; why simply on this issue? The minister has to consider that. She needs to understand why people think that they are seeing a certain amount of grandstanding on the issue.

I offer the deputy minister an opportunity to intervene, but he does not want to take it.

Colin Fox has spoken about living in a community and reflecting the aspirations and views of that community. Is it not his experience, and that of other members of the Scottish Socialist Party, that people are crying out for action on the issue? In my constituency, more than 500 people gave an almost overwhelming amount of support for the Executive's proposals. Is Colin Fox saying that, in the SSP's experience of representing constituents in various parts of Scotland, people do not raise the issue of antisocial behaviour?

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. I will address enforcement later in my speech.

As I am sure the chamber recognises, the debate has the stamp of Mrs Thatcher all over it. It has the stamp of someone who believed that there was no such thing as communities or society. Unfortunately, her legacy continues. It is at the heart of the political establishment, with its agenda of privatising local services, abandoning municipal support and supporting the idea that we are all individuals.

I hold the passionate belief that we rely on one another—we are all connected to one another and we must all look after one another. I do not believe in a society where the devil can take the hindmost. Like everyone else, I respect and rely on the bin men, the nursery nurse, the electricity supply worker, the firefighter and the train driver. Recently in Edinburgh, all of them have, by virtue of withdrawing their labour, reinforced how much we need them. No man, woman or child is an island.

We rely on the contribution that our youngsters and our senior citizens make—in equal measure—to the life of our communities. Their contribution makes our communities decent places in which we can live alongside one another.

Will the member give way?

No. I have given the member a chance to come in already.

I would like the Executive to introduce plans to encourage youngsters and senior citizens to get to know one another. On the fear of crime, we should encourage youngsters to understand what senior citizens have contributed to society and, vice versa, we should encourage senior citizens to understand how difficult it is to be 15 or 16 today.

As the minister is aware, the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders police has made it clear that

"Young people today are no worse than they were 20 years ago."

He also said that the level of youth crime is no worse than it was 20 years ago. The figures show that 3 per cent of youngsters in Scotland get into trouble and 0.17 per cent reoffend, yet we are repeating the big grandstanding debate in the Parliament. In The Scotsman today, the Minister for Justice makes the point that we are talking about 150 kids across Scotland—that is the scale of the problem.

The Minister for Communities posed a question about the choices that young people unfortunately make. Given the choice of going to the Fountain Park leisure complex in Fountainbridge, the Warner Village in the Omni Leisure building or Ocean Terminal, or seeing Hibs or a rock concert, or hanging around penniless outside the local off-licence on a wet Wednesday night, most youngsters, if they had the money, would make the same choice that we would make. The trouble is that the Executive does not give youngsters the opportunity to make that choice and, by virtue of the minister's speech today, the opportunity is not likely to come any time soon.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I have only a minute left.

In her opening speech, the minister seemed to disregard the issue of prevention. I recognise and welcome the work of the Dundee families project and the Edinburgh neighbourhood support scheme that she and other members have cited as good examples of a multi-agency approach that tries to prevent the problem from arising in the first place. If the Executive is honest in its attempts to deal with the causes of antisocial behaviour, there will be resource implications. People in my community and in the community that the Deputy Minister for Justice referred to will be dismayed by the comment made by the Minister for Communities that resources are not the answer. It is clear that resources are the answer and that the £30 million that she earmarked today is chickenfeed, because it is all targeted at enforcement. Moreover, the money will fund more custody places, taggings and evictions, extra police and a punishment bureaucracy that people in my community, the deputy minister's community and everyone else's communities do not want.

As for the issue of enforcement and tagging, I understand from speaking to the minister that tagging is seen only as an option in her consideration of alternatives to custody. However, it is a brutal and uncivilised option and we should have nothing to do with extending it. Similarly, evictions are no answer. The way forward is to understand that we should support enforcement procedures that encourage young people to put something back into the community, not those that take something from them.

I do not know whether Patrick Harvie lives in Glasgow, but if he lived in Viewpark Avenue, where an elderly gentleman has had to board himself up in his own home, he would want the Daily Record to report that story and the Parliament to take action on it. We have to acknowledge that people live in such conditions. I mean no disrespect to those who compile statistics, but we do not need statistics to tell us what is happening—the evidence is in front of us. The minister was born and bred in the Dennistoun area and has seen how that community has deteriorated. Its people want action and are quite happy with our rhetoric if it amplifies their concerns.

Will the member give way?

I will be quite happy to give way to the member in a minute.

Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the example of the old lady passing a bus shelter. We do not have bus shelters in Springburn because the local neds burn them down. We have lost two bus shelters in the Wallacewell Road area of Springburn because of the absolutely unacceptable behaviour of a tiny minority. I am the former youth convener of Glasgow City Council and no one is more committed than I am to ensuring the delivery of youth services in my constituency; however, a tiny minority is being allowed to rule our constituencies. That cannot be allowed to continue.

I agree absolutely with Paul Martin. I have seen people repairing a bus shelter in the morning only for it to be smashed up again by night time. I agree that people want action, but why has it taken Labour six years—and Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council decades—to get round to doing something about the situation? Every member in the chamber is asking for a bit less talk and a bit more action.

I am quite happy to deal with that point later.

I thank the minister for visiting my constituency. She has shown genuine concern about many of the issues that the community raised. However, she will recall that my constituents expressed concern that existing legislation was not being enforced. I share some of the Conservative party's concern that we should ensure that existing legislation—

The implementation of existing powers was one of the issues that emerged strongly from the consultation. In the consultation paper, we propose to ensure that agencies that are responsible for implementing antisocial behaviour measures—by which I mean not just housing agencies, but a much broader range of agencies—will be required to publish what they are doing and will be held accountable. They can no longer say that they choose not to take action on antisocial behaviour; instead, they will be required to take action.

I welcome the fact that we are moving away from what I call the database of excuses in our communities and away from the situation in which police officers who attend public meetings simply say, "I'm afraid there's very little that we can do at the moment. We try our best but the existing legislation isn't effective." Would those police officers have such a database of excuses if they lived in Viewpark Avenue, the Red Road flats or Burnie Court? They would not; instead, they would ensure that the issue was dealt with. The people who live in the leafy suburbs of Bearsden would not put up with graffiti in their community. The Parliament has to face up to the fact that existing legislation is not being enforced.

However, we must also point out that our communities welcome the proposed additional legislation. Not one person has said to me, "I don't want you to take any action to deal with unruly young people in our community." Indeed, they said that unruly adults should also be dealt with. No one has said that we should not ban the sale of spray paint to under-16s. One per cent of 600 people from Springburn said that we should not consider the possibility of tagging under-16s. We are simply amplifying the genuine concern of the communities that we represent. It is not rhetoric; we are facing up to reality. Fergus McCann once told a famous Celtic player to get a reality check. Opposition members should get a genuine reality check, examine the difficulties that we face in our communities and realise that this is not rhetoric, but a genuine attempt to deal with the issue.

I ask the minister to ensure that we face the challenge of enforcing existing legislation, and that police officers and all other authorities that deal with the problem are aware of existing powers. Police officers and housing officers have asked me to explain interim ASBOs to them far too many times and that should not be happening in our communities. We must train those people to ensure that they can make a difference. I hope that the proposed legislation can do that, too.

The minister asked why we think that the Executive is trying to stigmatise children. There are 72 pages in "Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-Social Behaviour", but we need to read only the 21 bullet points on the first three pages to find 12 direct or indirect references to children's being the source of the problem. No other issue approaches that level of comment and that is why we think that the Executive is picking on our youngsters and why we will attack it for doing so. The problem ain't that simple.

Is the member aware of statistics that show who the main victims of crime are?

The main victims of crime are young people.

And who are the perpetrators of that crime?

I thank the member for making clear the fact that the problem is not just to do with children. Children are victims; they are also a cause of crime, but not to the extent that we should pick on them as "Putting our communities first" does.

I pose the question, "What is antisocial behaviour?" because that theme has run through the debate. In response to Paul Martin, I accept that the minister's evidence was correct when she outlined many examples of antisocial behaviour and I accept unreservedly that the experiences that she described are valid, that the behaviour to which she and Paul Martin referred is antisocial and that we need to fix the problem. Section 19(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 defines antisocial conduct as that which

"caused or is likely to cause alarm or distress … to one or more persons not of the same household".

We face difficulties if we begin to compile lists of what we think are examples of antisocial behaviour. When we try to define the phrase, we find that different age groups have different views. We find that circumstances have to be coupled with behaviour before it becomes antisocial behaviour. I visited Lossiemouth on Tuesday with other members of the Communities Committee. We found that almost universally the people of Lossiemouth think that the major cause of antisocial behaviour is drink. However, agreement broke down over what form of post-drinking behaviour was antisocial.

Last night I was in Fiona Hyslop's home town, having a social drink in the Four Marys in Linlithgow. Incidentally, the verb social drink conjugates thus: I have a social drink; you have had enough; they're guttered oot their skulls. When we drink is not it always someone else's problem? Four young lads, who had their arms round one another's shoulders, passed noisily by in the other direction. There were snatches of songs and loud conversation, but they made no attempt to engage or harm anyone outside their group. Was I alarmed or disturbed? I was certainly not alarmed, but I was perhaps mildly disturbed. On the other hand, if I lived on Linlithgow High Street and such a noise occurred every night just after I had fallen into a well-deserved sleep, I would probably think that that was antisocial behaviour. There is a grey zone, where the context as well as the behaviour is important.

However, an assault—verbal or physical—on a private citizen or public servant is clearly the dark side of society and alcohol is a key factor in that. When that is established as a regular pattern of behaviour it becomes a clear case of antisocial behaviour. Could antisocial behaviour really be fully defined in law, as is perhaps being considered by the Executive, or is that a surrogate for creating criminals when there is not criminal evidence? If so, it would drive a coach and horses through civil liberties.

I gained insight in Lossiemouth this week into one part of the problem. Youngsters told me that although a decade ago there were five places that they could go to sit in, today there is one, despite the population's having grown in the period. To make youngsters who do not have somewhere to go move on from one street corner so that they congregate in another will not make a difference. I agree with Donald Gorrie that more facilities must be provided for youths.

We also need to give the police the facility to deal with the problem. A couple of years ago in Lossiemouth there was a serious problem with a group of youngsters, nicknamed the "Lossie Posse". The problem was not solved by changing the law; it was solved by directing resources, under the existing laws that were available to the police and others, into that community. The perpetrators were tried and found guilty; if they were youngsters they were put into the appropriate accommodation.

The Minister for Communities will have to work hard to justify her belief that changing the law rather than upping the resources is the way to solve the problem. Get off the backs of our young people—they are our future and they deserve and demand our support. I say to the minister that we put our communities first when we provide resources that support them. Persecution of one category of our society—youth—is no substitute for prosecution of offenders. It is necessary to give society and society's defenders the tools that will enable them to do the job.

It is little short of astonishing how times and attitudes change. The Minister for Communities spent a considerable time in her introductory speech highlighting the problems of antisocial behaviour. She outlined those and identified the issues very well. I take no issue with her in that respect. However, I ask myself: is this the same Margaret Curran who voted against a provision that we tried to introduce, when we were dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill, whereby people who were making life miserable for their neighbours would be compulsorily removed from that environment? Is this the same Margaret Curran who, allied with Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry, voted against measures that we would have introduced and which were the same as those that the Executive is now attempting to introduce? Not since Saul went on his celebrated excursion to Damascus has there been such a change of mind, change of view and change of attitude.

Is this the same Conservative party under whose aegis 73,000 more crimes were committed by 1997 than were committed in 1979? Does that reflect another journey to Damascus?

Not at all. Mr Brown seeks yet again to introduce a history lesson into the debate. The fact is that the Labour Government has been in charge since 1997 and the Executive, of which he—when he has occasional delusions of grandeur—claims to be a part, has been in control for the past four and a half years. His point is spurious.

Let us consider some of the Executive's proposals. We will obviously determine whether we will support them in due course, but some are decidedly interesting. The ideas that have been put forward by Cathy Jamieson about the diversionary approach—to give kids something to do to keep them out of trouble—undoubtedly have their attraction. If kids are occupied they are not misbehaving. We can certainly go along with that idea.

However, other aspects of the proposals are worthy of further inquiry. We certainly agree that the powers of the children's panels require examination, strengthening and resources. However, approximately a third of those who give so willingly of their time to serve on children's hearings resign every year; it is clear that they have identified a problem. That is why it is all the more surprising that the Executive opposed, when we suggested them, the very measures that it now seeks to introduce. Another matter is restorative justice and children's being forced to confront their misdeeds and to make good the damage that their vandalism has caused.

Is Mr Aitken aware of the exit report that was conducted by the children's hearings system? It suggests that far from panel members leaving the children's hearings system because they are frustrated by the system, the main reason they give for leaving the hearings panel after one year is that employers are reluctant to give them adequate time off to conduct panel activities.

I find that surprising, because the last time that I investigated the background of people who served on children's panels I found that a large number of them worked for public bodies and local authorities; local authorities have always been enthusiastic about staff contributing in that direction.

Let us consider some of the other measures. We can go along with tagging—it was after all our idea, although Labour pooh-poohed it at the time. The proposals on ASBOs also have a degree of cogency, but I would be grateful if the minister could address a particular difficulty on ASBOs and parenting orders, in relation to which she is being a little disingenuous. She said that the proposals are not about locking up parents and children, but the Executive does not seem to have a strategy in place because the fact is that, regrettably, many ASBOs and parenting orders will be breached. What is the Executive's solution to that difficulty? It will, inevitably, be custody.

I must also say that in my view—I am open to contradiction—it is not appropriate under article 6 of the European convention on human rights to impose custody upon parents as a result of the misconduct of their children. That is almost the equivalent of my being caught speeding and Mary Scanlon having her licence endorsed. No one can be punished for the activities of another person.

I apologise for not being in the chamber during the early part of Bill Aitken's speech. I had to go to deal with a genuinely urgent matter. I apologise, too, to Stewart Stevenson for missing his speech.

In response to Bill Aitken's point—I hope that I have got right the gist of his comments despite my having missed the earlier part of his speech—parents would not be rebuked for the failures of the children; they would be rebuked for their own parenting failures if they were asked to do something. For example, the children's hearings panels would be grateful if they could get parents much more involved in the care and welfare of their children, in particular if children are involved in offending.

In relation to ASBOs and parenting orders, we envisage that many things would happen before someone gets to the very sharp end. The sharp end would be only for people who persistently refuse to comply. I will be happy to talk the issue through with Bill Aitken, perhaps in committee.

I will consider that offer. There is a real issue here, and I would not like the minister to misdirect herself in law with regard to what would happen in the final analysis.

A number of members have highlighted the difficulties, but the matter has been out for consultation. Why was it necessary for the minister to put it out for consultation? Why did she not ask Paul Martin and Johann Lamont, both of whom have made cogent speeches about the extent of the problem? It is time for action: the talking has gone on for far too long.

I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak in the debate. I fail to understand why my colleagues on the Conservative benches are so much against consultation. My constituents welcomed whole-heartedly the opportunity to contribute. They know that I can speak on their behalf and that other MSPs do so as well, but they welcomed the opportunity to get involved in the specific details of the proposed legislation and to help to shape something that will be of great benefit to their communities in the longer term.

There is a great deal to be welcomed in the proposed bill. The extension of ASBOs, parenting orders, community reparation, electronic monitoring and the banning of the sale of spray paint to under-16s are some examples of ways in which the bill will make a difference. However, I will focus on some specific areas that we still need to address if we are to tackle antisocial behaviour.

I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague Paul Martin that we must ensure enforcement of existing legislation. That will be enhanced by new powers in the proposed bill. As the minister stated, much antisocial behaviour in our communities is fuelled by alcohol, and anecdotal evidence suggests that much of that alcohol is purchased illegally either by, or on behalf of, people who are under 18. There should be extremely tough penalties for off-licences that sell alcohol to under-age drinkers and there should be much greater focus on those who purchase it for under-18s. That could perhaps be done through targeted advertising aimed at preventing the problems, and through much tougher penalties for those who are convicted.

Does the member agree that there is a huge problem with alcohol that is illicitly brought in from the continent in vans, which is duty free and is sold on out of the backs of vehicles in car parks to anybody who is prepared to buy it? Is not that another issue that the Executive needs to address in partnership with the UK Government?

That matter is being dealt with by our colleagues at Westminster. The problem that we have here is the fact that there are still people who feel that it is acceptable to buy alcohol for people who are under 18, thereby encouraging them to participate in drinking alcohol, which can lead to antisocial behaviour. We must also think about the location of off-licences. In my constituency, far too many off-licences are located in the centres of residential areas. We must bear that in mind when it comes to future planning applications.

The proposed antisocial behaviour bill will give us a chance to address parental responsibility, which is a major factor in the problem of antisocial behaviour. Parents must acknowledge their responsibility to be aware of their children's behaviour, but that does not always seem to be the case. Other mechanisms must also work alongside the bill to ensure that support is offered to parents who need help with, for example, parenting skills or substance misuse problems. Community schools have a part to play, as does partnership working between health departments and social services. However, legislation should be put in place for last-resort situations in which, despite full support being offered, parents refuse to take responsibility for the actions of their children.

I would also like the use of closed-circuit television cameras to be extended. There is no doubt that use of such systems acts as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour in some communities. That has been demonstrated in Rutherglen and Cambuslang, where cameras have been in place for some time and have produced excellent results. The main obstacle to continuing and expanding such facilities is usually financial. Although the Executive has provided finance for the establishment of new systems, revenue funding is always a barrier when it comes to maintaining and expanding those systems. Some thought must be given to that in the bill.

I welcome the proposals to support and protect the victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour. I have heard at first hand in my constituency about the fear that is felt by those who are called as witnesses and the intimidation that they experience. Sometimes it is so severe that it has an adverse effect on their health. I welcome the proposal that greater use be made of professional witnesses in order to address that problem.

The minister recently visited my constituency to hear at first hand about some of the problems that are being experienced by the communities of Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Toryglen and King's Park—stories that I and my councillor colleagues hear all too regularly. I have consulted widely on the proposed bill, and my constituents welcome its aims.

There is no doubt that antisocial behaviour is on the increase, but it will be some time before the bill is fully effective—as I believe it will be. However, that does not mean that nothing is being done at the moment. We have heard about the role of community wardens; I welcome warmly the initiative in South Lanarkshire where 32 such wardens have been recruited. We welcomed some of them to Rutherglen recently. Although it is early days, the wardens are making themselves known in the community and I am sure that they will play a valuable role. Annabel Goldie seems to be unwilling to accept the concept of community wardens; however, I assure her that she is doing the people of Renfrewshire a disservice by discouraging any efforts that may help to address antisocial behaviour.

We have heard calls for more police and I welcome initiatives such as the proposed High Court reform bill, which will free up more police time. However, the issue is not only about policing. I warmly welcome the proposed antisocial behaviour bill's emphasis on partnership working, but with stronger punitive measures to be used when necessary. That is the way forward in addressing antisocial behaviour. The proposed bill offers us a real opportunity, which we must grasp with both hands if we are to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities.

I point out to people in the public gallery that photography is not permitted on the premises.

There has been a bit of sad triumphalism from the Labour ministers in the debate. It is as if they have just discovered this issue, although Labour has been in power for six years.

Many of the points that Paul Martin and Janis Hughes made are policy issues that could be addressed without legislation. No one underestimates the problems of antisocial behaviour, but we have been completely underwhelmed by the Executive's response to it. The Executive is dealing with the consequences of antisocial behaviour, not the causes. The minister wants to be seen to be doing something—she laboured that point herself—but her solutions are flawed. There is a serious point to be made. If the minister raises expectations—as she has done in visiting those 30 constituencies—there is a risk that she will fall very flat unless the proposals deliver. Policy solutions, not legislation, will resolve the issues.

Will Fiona Hyslop tell us which proposals she thinks are flawed?

The problem is the fact that the Executive wants to leap to legislative solutions. Antisocial behaviour orders, for example, face serious problems. Three years ago in this chamber, the same minister trumpeted ASBOs as the big thing that would deal with antisocial neighbours. Let us consider the situation three years on.

Will the member give way?

In North Lanarkshire—where Karen Whitefield's constituency is—14 ASBOs have been applied for and five have been granted. In West Lothian, one order has been applied for and one has been granted.

That is not true.

I am sorry if Labour members do not like to hear this. The orders were the Executive's big solution, but they have not worked in the past three years, since they have been available.

The First Minister came to West Lothian to launch his latest salvo on antisocial behaviour. However, the problem in West Lothian—as the Deputy Minister for Communities will know—is that police officers are having to go out on their own. If the Executive wants solutions to the problems, and if it wants the police to deal with gatherings of young people, it must address the issue of single-handed policing in the Lothian and Borders region.

Does Fiona Hyslop accept the fact that Lothian and Borders police force has more officers than it has ever had in the past, especially in West Lothian?

Let us consider the strategy for Edinburgh and ensure that we have more police in Lothian and Borders police. That is a big safety issue that must be addressed.

I now turn to the content of the bill and the definition of antisocial behaviour. The minister has not addressed the issue of children with disabilities. Is the minister going to stigmatise not only young people but young people with disabilities, to whom many of the antisocial behaviour issues relate? I hope not. If the minister had read the responses as I have, she would know that that is one of people's serious concerns.

Are we talking about a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem? I would like to think that we are, but—

Will the member give way?

No.

I think that Donald Gorrie was right when he talked about David Blunkett's bill. The problem that we face is that, instead of seeking Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, the Executive saw what was happening down south and decided to import the Anti-social Behaviour Bill wholesale.

The thing that is different about Scotland is the children's hearings system, which has been mentioned by one or two members but, interestingly, not particularly by Labour members. That is part of a deliberate policy to downgrade and run down the children's hearings system, which is one of the most serious problems with the Executive's policy. The under-resourcing that was mentioned and the problem with the lack of social workers to deal with the disposals suggest to me that the Executive might like the children's hearings system to fail so that people are pushed into the youth court system. That is extremely worrying.

I know that a review is under way, but the Kilbrandon report said that the children's hearings system had to be more dynamic and to evolve. In that case, why are we rushing to legislate before the report of the review has been published?

We have to recognise that our children's hearings system is precious. Perhaps supporting that system is the way forward.

Will the member accept that some of the responses to the consultation from people involved in the children's hearings system suggest that members of the children's panels want the opportunity to consider different disposals?

I am sure that they want different disposals under the children's hearings system, but not if they have to get a court referral for a hearing after an ASBO has been granted. It is worrying that, in his recent lecture on this issue, the First Minister said that hearings were useful only for very young children. That is an extremely worrying policy emphasis.

We have heard reference to acceptable behaviour contracts, which were piloted in Edinburgh and are now being rolled out across the city and in Falkirk. They might be a way forward. Safeguarding Communities and Reducing Offending in Scotland—SACRO—has found that 77 per cent of the young people with whom it has worked on restorative justice programmes did not reoffend within a 12-month period.

For the benefit of the minister, I point out that the community planning system is meant to be at the heart of the proposals that are before us. However, as some areas are just setting up such a system, what guarantee can the minister give that it is an appropriate delivery framework?

One of the Executive's big ideas is its proposal to ban the sale of spray paint to the under-16s. If that is to be done, why not deal with it along with high hedges, fireworks, litter and so on in a civic governance bill? A young person who took part in the consultation said of the proposal:

"I think this is stupid cos you could be using it for stuff like skateboards. You could stop selling everything like pencils in case we shove them through each other's eyes."

We need to get a bit of common sense into the debate. We have to use the existing licensing laws and police resources properly. Also, we have to resource the children's hearings system properly. The Executive has had six years to do that but has not. Legislation will not solve the problems.

In her opening speech, Margaret Curran gave a vivid and heartfelt description of the problems of disorder and antisocial behaviour that she has identified through the roadshows that have taken place across the country. Most of us recognise the situations that she described vividly but, as ever, describing the problem is one thing and prescribing and implementing effective solutions is another. I am sure that the Executive accepts that. That is what this debate should be about.

I commend the thoughtful and excellent speeches that were made by Donald Gorrie, Stewart Stevenson and Janis Hughes in particular. From a variety of perspectives, they outlined constructive contributions to the debate. I regret that I cannot say the same of Bill Aitken, who is no longer in the chamber. He called for action without consultation and without a clear idea or any suggestion of what action he was talking about. He was high on negatives but not particularly good on positives.

Crime—whether serious crime, nuisance crime or antisocial behaviour—is not caused by the level of policing or by the existence or otherwise of specific criminal offences or public powers. After all, police numbers are at an all-time high and the police have far more powers than they did 30 years ago. Effective policing can inhibit the level of criminal activity and give a measure of protection to the public, but the root causes of criminal and antisocial behaviour are complex and interrelated, as the minister made clear.

Does the member agree that it is difficult for politicians to tell the police how they should operate and, indeed, that we are advised that we should not interfere in that way? Does he further agree that the public are concerned that they do not see police on the streets as often as they would like and that, often, having given help to the police in relation to activities such as people dealing drugs on the streets, they do not perceive any action to have been taken by the police? Regardless of the numbers of police that we have, the reality is that policing is not seen to be effective.

I think that Mr Adam makes my point for me. We can have as many police on the street as we like but, at the end of the day, the propensity to commit crimes and antisocial acts has to be tackled at the roots.

From my experience, I would say that, in many areas of our communities, there are more police on the street than there were a few years ago. There is a greater emphasis on community policing, which is to be welcomed, but it is only part of the solution. The causes of criminal and antisocial behaviour include: social attitudes; poor parenting; low self-esteem; drug and alcohol abuse, which Donald Gorrie and others mentioned; parental criminality and conflict; and mental health problems. I say to all members that there are no short-term, simple or populist solutions to those problems. As the minister made clear, tackling the root causes requires longer-term strategies and effective harnessing of public and voluntary sector resources.

I suggest that there is huge significance in the fact that many of those who cause trouble in communities at the age of 15 or 16—who are characterised as neds, hoodlums and so on—are the same people who were before children's panels at the age of five or six because of a lack of parental care or protection at that stage. We ignore that point at our peril.

The Scottish Executive has done and is doing a great deal to put in place longer-term strategies to tackle this frustrating and damaging issue. Rightly, it is a high priority for us all. I commend in particular the investment made in early intervention and diversion from crime and the proposals for strategies that involve and support children and which place antisocial behaviour in a wider context through, for example, the innovative acceptable behaviour contracts, which are being tried out in Edinburgh but which were tested by the Liberal Democrat-controlled authority in Islington earlier. Incidentally, acceptable behaviour contracts cost about one twentieth of the cost of ASBOs.

We have to be careful that we do not end up creating criminals. According to the information from SACRO, people who are labelled as criminals are more likely to reoffend. For example, tagging can be used as a badge of honour by criminals.

I am a great supporter of the children's hearings system. It is Scottish jurisprudence's unique contribution to dealing properly with the problems that we are discussing. I welcome the review that is about to take place after 30 years of the system being in operation, but my view is that the children's hearings system has to be backed up and reinforced by resources and new alternatives and options. If those are not in place, which can be the case, children's hearings, youth courts, tribunals or whatever are doomed to failure.

Youth services are improving, but they are fragmented. There are too many pilot systems and there is too much difficulty involved in following implementation across the country. There are also too many failures to put in place the social workers and youth workers who are required to make the services effective.

There is a considerable cadre of trained youth leaders in the uniformed and non-uniformed youth organisations. We should make more effective use of that valuable resource. Are we giving those organisations adequate resources?

We need a wide range of measures to reduce a multifaceted problem. However, let us not fall into the trap of placing too much emphasis on punishment and enforcement and too little on the support structures, good projects and early interventions that will ultimately make the difference. Criminal and children's hearings procedures must feed back into those interventions and trigger effective and speedy responses that have at their core the objective of changing criminal and antisocial behaviour.

I hope that those comments are of some help to the debate.

I thank the minister and her deputy for taking the time to visit my constituency during the summer recess to meet community representatives, councillors, professionals from Fife Council's housing, social work and community services departments and the reporter to the children's panel, to hear about their experiences and about what they think should be done about antisocial behaviour in its widest sense. I hope that the ministers and their officials got as much from the meeting as I did.

Before making substantive points about young people, I will describe a successful community-based project in my constituency called booze busters. It originated in the Abbeyview area of Dunfermline, which is a large estate on the edge of the city, with a population larger than that of Cupar, the former county town of Fife. The community has been blighted by many of the social problems that are associated with peripheral estates in our larger cities. The project commenced in February 2001 as an initiative of Fife Council, Fife Primary Care NHS Trust, Fife constabulary and local licensees. It was set up due to the increasing incidence of under-age drinking, vandalism and the rise of a general antisocial behaviour culture. We all know of the causal link between excess alcohol consumption and antisocial behaviour.

Two and a half years on and with an excellent evaluation already completed—which I would be glad to share with ministers—booze busters is moving on to its third stage. Reports of youngsters committing petty crime are down. Vandalism is down. Reports from local people of off-sales selling to under-age drinkers are also down. The evaluation report was warmly endorsed at a meeting yesterday at the headquarters of Fife constabulary, at which I was glad to speak to an audience of police officers, councillors and Fife Council officials. The report is, I hope, being used as a blueprint for other parts of Fife to follow. I hope that their communities experience the same benefits that my community in Abbeyview has.

Johann Lamont made a point about staff in off-sales often being intimidated by people pressing them to sell alcohol. Because off-sales staff have been involved in the project and have been able to point to it, and because the project was so welcome in the community, booze busters has had the good effect of staff being able to reinforce the message that under-age people should not be sold alcohol.

Because of my association with and interest in children and young people, I will address that aspect of antisocial behaviour. The minister said in her opening speech that, when we discuss antisocial behaviour, we should not fall into the trap of assuming that we are talking about young people alone. The idea that we are talking about them alone is a gross misrepresentation of the debate. The fact that I choose to talk about young people should in no way be taken as my endorsing a view that young people are the only problem in relation to antisocial behaviour.

I was glad to see that Age Concern stated in its response to the consultation on the proposed bill that not all older people are in fear of or resent the presence of young people. Although I endorse that and am glad to hear Age Concern say it, the last time that I attended the Dunfermline elderly forum, the most common and vocal complaint that older people raised was their fear about large numbers of highly volatile school-age people, possibly fuelled by alcohol, hanging round pedestrian high streets or in the bus station in James Street.

It is clear that behaviour that some regard as acceptable can be completely unacceptable to others, including other young people. On Monday, a class from Blairhall Primary School in my constituency visited the Parliament, and I participated in a question-and-answer session with them in the chamber. They raised unsolicited questions concerning what can be done about older young people in their village who stop them enjoying the recreational facilities that are provided for them in Blairhall. Older youths, who commandeer their play area, who drink, shout, swear and intimidate the younger kids and who, once they are finished, smash their bottles around the play areas, make it impossible for the youngsters to use the facilities properly.

All that came from one primary school class of nine-year-olds from a community that, although small, has not one but two community centres and a nearby, recently opened, council-provided, floodlit, all-weather, five-a-side football pitch. There are alternatives for the older youths to simply ruining the fun for younger ones. The Blairhall bairns' view is not unique in my constituency and is no different from views in constituencies throughout Scotland. The antisocial behaviour of some young people seriously affects other youngsters' quality of life. It is too simplistic to say that a lack of resources results in antisocial behaviour and that simply providing more resources will eliminate the problem. The impact of the antisocial behaviour of some young people on other young people cannot be overestimated.

Last week, we debated education. Several members talked about the incidence of and problems associated with school bullying and about the fact that bullying needs to be tackled. If it needs to be tackled in schools, it needs to be tackled in the community. For a youngster to be intimidated or assaulted by another young person in school is no worse than for a youngster to be intimidated or assaulted by another young person in the community. I contend that we owe it to all young people to ensure that we address that problem.

Fiona Hyslop touched on children's hearings. The Parliament probably has no more passionate advocate of the children's hearings system than me. That is why I support the concept of parenting orders. The option of referring a parent to the court should be open to a children's hearing if the panel feels that the parent is not carrying out their parental duties adequately. Those of us who believe in the children's hearings system have been arguing for that for a long time. For too long, children's hearings have only been able to do something to the child and to stigmatise the child, irrespective of the grounds for referral. For that reason, I support parenting orders in principle.

The issues that the Communities Committee will consider will be challenging. As a new member of that committee, I look forward to examining the bill rigorously once it has been introduced. The Executive, rather than being decried, should be congratulated on addressing something that is an issue for us all in all our communities.

The minister opened the debate by saying that we are dealing with real-life problems. She is absolutely right. Communities the length and breadth of Scotland are crying out for support. Everybody has the right to live in their own home in peace and security.

A few weeks ago, I attended a public meeting in Auchmuty. That is an area of Glenrothes that Scott Barrie knows well. It is a strong community, with an active tenants association in which I was involved for many years. The association supports both the young folk and the old folk; it runs old folks treats and the like.

Nearly 150 people turned out at the meeting. The police, the local authority and other agencies were present, as were Christine May, the local councillor and I. It became clear that the community, like other communities, believes that it is being abandoned by the statutory authorities.

That community knows about antisocial behaviour. It was, after all, the community where the Graham family from Glenrothes lived. The community knows well what it is talking about when it talks about antisocial behaviour. When 150 people turn out on a wet night to present their concerns to MSPs, councillors and statutory authorities, we have an absolute duty to listen, and not only to listen, but to take action.

The minister said that the authorities should be accountable to the communities. In some cases, there is scant evidence that that is happening. A culture change is needed among some local authority staff. It is unacceptable for a Fife Council official to tell a community, as one did at a meeting in Tanshall last year, that the council would not do a clean-up because the community had caused all the dumping and littering in the first place. Nor is it acceptable for council officials to sit at public meetings, as they did last week, wringing their hands and blaming the police, the community and the Scottish Parliament for not taking action.

Legislation alone is not enough: it needs to be enforced by our police and understood by our local authorities. The police must be adequately resourced to ensure that current legislation is enforced properly. Part of the problem is that mere lip service is being paid to existing legislation. Local authorities are not willing to enforce it and the police lack the resources to do so.

I supported ASBOs when they were introduced. The rhetoric was that ASBOs would deal with antisocial behaviour, and we raised expectations in our communities that that would happen. In reality, it did not.

In the little time that is available to me I want to raise some specific issues. I know that other members have already raised them, but I would like to reinforce the points that have been made. Janis Hughes spoke about off-licences and the problem of older people getting alcohol and giving it to youngsters. I raised that issue a couple of weeks ago, when we debated the licensing laws. Janis Hughes is right to highlight the problem. I hope that the ministers will take the point on board when they consider the licensing laws.

We need to examine the location of some off-licences in our communities. In Auchmuty, the off-licence is right beside the children's play park, which is unacceptable. When communities come to public meetings or to MSPs they are able to say where drug dealing is happening and who is doing it. Why do the police seem unable to take action or to get convictions? We must have zero tolerance of graffiti and vandalism in our communities. Nicola Sturgeon is right to say that bus shelters are repaired in the morning and destroyed at night. As a society, we must say that that is not acceptable. Bus shelters must be repaired, because we cannot allow the good folk in communities to believe that they are being abandoned and that because things are being destroyed, we are doing nothing about this problem. We must create communities in which people are respected and that people can respect.

We must take action against private landlords and their tenants to ensure that they are not allowed to flout the law. I would like a licensing scheme for private landlords to operate in each local authority area. Unless landlords adhere to a code, local authorities should refuse to license them as private landlords. Perhaps the minister will think about that.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. If today we can at least agree that we have an antisocial behaviour problem, we will have reached first base, even if we disagree about what we should do about it. People who are living in the most difficult circumstances deserve to have their problems considered, not dismissed in the rather contemptuous way in which that has happened over previous months, although thankfully not in the chamber today.

I am convener of the Communities Committee, which will have the interesting role of exploring the issues in depth and teasing out some of the difficulties surrounding the proposals. As has already been indicated, our first action has been to decide to go out across Scotland, to hear the experiences of people both young and old—people who are committed to their communities and want to do something for them. We will then reflect on what those people have to say.

Debates about crime and justice are always difficult. We must reflect on the balance between prevention and punishment and the importance of victims' experience. If there is no faith in the system, that is a major problem for us all. In those circumstances, some will continue to be afraid and to be silenced, but others will take action. We will have in our communities—literally—the survival of the fittest.

Like Scott Barrie, I am amazed that people who say that bullying in schools, racial harassment and bigotry and insult should stop, should argue that to describe antisocial behaviour in communities as unacceptable is to stigmatise youth culture. Colin Fox should talk to the leader of the party to which he belongs, who, because of his direct experience as a local councillor, has accepted that antisocial behaviour is a problem.

Colin Fox mentioned the firefighters and so on. We recognise that firefighters, nurses, shop workers and bus drivers often face attack in local communities, predominantly from young people. Many members from all parties have been clear about the need to protect those workers.

Is the member aware of the qualitative research conducted by Barnardo's, which shows that some of the young people to whom she is referring are the most vulnerable victims in society? Will she confirm that the "plague" mentioned in yesterday's Executive press release was a reference to those people? Does she agree that that is an offensive word to use in relation to young people or to our communities? Does she also agree that it is as offensive as some of the references to people with mental health problems that have been made this week in the chamber?

One problem in our communities is that very vulnerable young people, including young people with learning disabilities, are the first target of stigmatisation, bullying and offences.

We agree that it is unacceptable that firefighters should face attack in local communities. Why do we not recognise that it is unacceptable for someone who simply lives in a community to be attacked? Surely we can agree on that much.

Much is said about the way in which we talk about young people. Do we imagine that the adults who are causing mayhem and wielding knives in our communities pop up fully formed at the age of 25? Do they start to develop their attitudes when they turn 20, or does our communities' failure to confront those attitudes early enough allow for the emergence of adults who create problems at a later stage? The issue here is prevention.

It has been suggested that this matter has been got up because we have nothing better to do. When thinking about what I should say today, I considered spending six minutes reading from the case notes of the work with which I deal every day of the week. However, I realised that even in six minutes I could not begin to give members a flavour of the problems that some of the people in my community face.

I recognise that anecdote alone cannot determine legislation, but it provides us all with a reality check. When I was first elected to the Parliament, I had no idea how much time I would spend on this issue. I have made it a priority because my constituents have come to me to demand that I take action.

I am driven on the issue not by the theory of youth disorder and antisocial behaviour, but by the despair that has been expressed to me by elderly people tormented by young people who have taken over a children's play area for their gang battles; by people who have had to move their cars streets away from their homes because they have had the audacity to complain about others' behaviour; and by four or five families in one street in my constituency who have had either to sell or to abandon their homes and to declare themselves homeless because of the assaults and oppression to which they were subjected by unruly and unacceptable neighbours. Most tellingly, I am driven by the despair of a woman in one part of my constituency who fought for 20 years to turn the constituency round, is proud of the physical changes to it and was for years part of a tenants group, but who told me that she had had enough and that she would get out if she could. We cannot ignore those people.

Antisocial behaviour is not funny. Prevention and punishment are not mutually exclusive: we must have both. We talk about the need for more policing and recognise the value of high-visibility policing, but we have a general problem. If people behave only when they see a police officer, what chance is there of our having a decent, safe community? We need to say to young people that boredom is never an excuse for spitting in an old woman's face or for rattling a window at 3 o'clock in the morning. The vast majority of young people whom I know would be deeply insulted that anyone should suggest that that kind of behaviour is part of their culture.

Will the member give way?

The member is in her last minute.

We must consider what happens when the role of the police is undermined because nothing happens when a person's name is taken or action is demanded by the local community. The police have said that there is a danger of their being alienated from the community, but in some parts of my community they are held in contempt. People have no faith that the police will do anything for them.

Precisely because all our young people matter we must tell both young and older people what is acceptable in our communities. The Executive's proposals are part of that process. We should tackle the causes of crime, but we should not ignore its consequences for our communities.

We would all agree that there is no short-term solution to the problem of antisocial behaviour. As we have heard, it is connected with deprivation, with unemployment, with alcohol and drug abuse, and so on. However, while we struggle to find ways of dealing with the problem, there are people out there whose lives are being made miserable.

I want to give members a snapshot—one that most members will recognise from their own surgeries. My snapshot involves a young lady who came to see me last week. I have decided to call her Annabel. She is a sonsie, intelligent lass with a sense of humour. That sense of humour is being severely tested. She is getting very close to a nervous breakdown because of the antics of what the tabloids would call a family from hell, near-neighbours of hers in a Fife village. I would identify the village but that would probably be unfair. It is like many villages on the fringes of the old mining community and I think that it was the birthplace of a former First Minister. I will not say more than that about the village.

Annabel is a single mother buying her own home through a local housing association. The group of houses in which she lives contains houses that are let out to tenants. When she went there, she felt that it was a reasonably decent community. However, for the past five years, she has had to cope with a particular family—a mother with a succession of different partners and with a 16-year-old son who is apparently totally out of control. There is drug and alcohol abuse in the street. She has applied for and has obtained antisocial behaviour orders. They have been breached. Recently, she managed to achieve the eviction of the family from the house from which the problem emanated. She actually left her own house more than a year ago to go to live with her mother because she simply could not tolerate the noise levels, the drunkenness and the arguments. A CCTV camera was put up outside her home; it lasted one day and was then ripped down. That is the kind of life that this girl has had to endure.

Annabel returned to her house believing that the eviction orders had been served earlier this year. However, the family, with legal advice, managed to appeal against the eviction orders. A further six months has therefore elapsed while this totally antisocial behaviour has continued. Annabel tells me that the police are no longer interested in her plight. They have already been to the area several times. The social work department is no longer interested in her plight. The press—my goodness—are no longer interested in her plight. The press hear about so many problems with families from hell that they do not want to hear about yet another one.

What does Annabel do? She comes to me and lays out the whole litany of evidence of the problems—just as she came to my predecessor in the constituency. Nothing happened then, so now she has raised the same problems and another MSP is in the situation of trying to come up with a solution.

We hear a great deal about the deprivation that leads to many such problems, and I am sure that we totally sympathise. However, we have to concentrate on the victims much more than before. I agree with our Annabel—Annabel Goldie—that, in theory, the powers are there. Police powers are there and children's panels are there. Those things are in place, but the hard fact is that the problems are not being solved on the ground. I agree with Tricia Marwick: it is all very well to go to organisations, or to councils such as Fife Council, and complain, but what they do is wring their hands, pass the buck, and say it is not their problem but the police's problem or the Scottish Parliament's problem, and so on. The problem is constantly passed to someone else.

When I next go to see my Annabel in her village, what am I going to tell her? That the Scottish Parliament is consulting yet again, after five long years—which, coincidentally, is the lifetime of her problem—and is still coming up with answers. I will be interested to hear what she has to say when I tell her that.

I agree with all that has been said about the need to find the causes of the problem but I am afraid that, a bit like death and taxes, antisocial behaviour has been with us for a long time and looks like being with us for a long time to come.

We would all agree that antisocial behaviour manifests itself in many different ways. One thing for sure is that this issue affects the quality of life of people all across Scotland—not in every community, it is true, but in enough communities to affect people from all walks of life. Whether from personal experience, or from the experience of their family, people have a view and they want to be heard.

Let us be clear: antisocial behaviour crosses all age groups. Executive ministers have engaged with all age groups in the debate and have engaged with communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I have replicated that engagement with residents in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The message is the same: people are fed up—fed up with not being able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home and fed up with not being able to walk the streets of their community without fear of intimidation or aggression. Whether those fears are real or perceived, we must deal with them. Decent, law-abiding citizens say to me and to Government that enough is enough. Our constituents expect Government to take action and to take action now.

The Parliament and the Executive want to encourage people to be involved in making and shaping policy. Over the past four years, we have consulted on many issues and I am surprised that speakers on the Tory benches have seemed to criticise that consultation process this morning. However, never has the willingness of communities to be involved and to have their voices heard been greater than on this issue. People want their communities to be put first and they want the Parliament to address the real problems that affect them daily.

Antisocial behaviour can be small, petty actions but, added together, those petty actions of vandalism, and of constant harassment through noise and nuisance, produce major problems. In extreme cases, antisocial behaviour is a very serious problem. It is wrecking communities and stripping them of the civic pride that they once held so dear. That civic pride existed in communities up and down Scotland. We must work for change. We must educate people and remind them that, although we all have rights, we also have responsibilities—to each other and to our community.

Other members have described how their communities have been affected. They have mentioned measures that are helping to effect change. I do not have enough time, Presiding Officer, to go into detail about my constituents' experiences. However, existing laws and powers do not protect our communities and our people. We must take action to deal with rogue landlords, as mentioned by Johann Lamont and others. People tell us that we cannot license or register landlords because it would affect their livelihood; but what about the lives of the people in my community who find it difficult to get up for work in the morning because of the irresponsible behaviour of antisocial landlords and their tenants?

People in my community tell me that we must take action to deal with licence holders. I appreciate Annabel Goldie's point about responsible licence holders who operate tightly within the law, but what about the people who do not? What about the people who regularly sell drink to people under the age of 18? What about the people who regularly sell drink to people in their 50s who buy it for younger folk round the corner? The livelihood of those licence holders will be put at risk but, I ask again, what about the people in my community, in the streets of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, whose lives are put at risk and made a misery by the irresponsible actions of those licence holders?

Presiding Officer, we are all watching the clock.

You have one minute and seven seconds.

It has been claimed this morning that the police are against the introduction of community wardens. I tell the chamber today that the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth support the introduction of community wardens, and so do the police. They see the introduction of wardens as a tool that will assist them to improve the quality of people's lives. The Parliament should not shy away from this issue; we must address it. Obviously, we must ensure that we provide facilities and resources to back up our young and old people alike. The problem of antisocial behaviour has gone on for far too long. We must take action now.