Plenary, 02 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 2, 2003

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

Antisocial Behaviour

Resumed debate.

The next item of business is continuation of the debate on antisocial behaviour. We are still in the open part of the debate.

This morning's debate was interesting and I hope that we can maintain the same high standard this afternoon. I enjoyed it; some speeches were measured, while others were rather heated. It is fair to say that certain members have particular constituency problems that engendered some of the passion in this morning's debate.

I, too, took advantage of Margaret Curran's offer to organise meetings in my constituency and I thank Hugh Henry for coming along and talking to many individuals and representatives of community groups in my constituency. He delivered the Executive's message and—probably more important—listened to what my constituents said.

This morning, we spent some time talking about youth. Members made various denials that youths are the sole source of the problem, while others raised points that ran counter to that view. I should point out that Scotland's youth is Scotland's future. At the moment, we write off about 30 per cent of our young people because they leave school with no qualifications. We cannot examine young people's antisocial behaviour in isolation. The population of this country is declining and is likely to continue to do so; if we want a smart, successful Scotland, we cannot simply write off a substantial proportion of our young people at the very beginning. Although we should rightly be proud of the fact that 51 per cent of young people go on to higher education, I repeat that 30 per cent leave school with no qualifications. I am not suggesting that there is a direct link between that 30 per cent of young people and those who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but I suspect that a close examination of the matter might reveal one.

We need to give people a stake in our society. If people have no commitment to their communities, they will not respect them. In any case, they probably do not respect themselves, their families or their communities. In such a situation, there will be graffiti, vandalism and violence and people will scream to be moved out of communities to which they have happily contributed for many years. As I think Johann Lamont pointed out earlier in the debate, those people finally give up.

Alcohol contributes to the problems that are associated with antisocial behaviour. We will have to be very careful about what we do with the Nicholson report. We cannot, on the one hand, say that we do not want off-licences in residential areas—some members made comments in that direction this morning—and on the other hand adopt the approach that was taken by Mike Rumbles throughout the debate on the Nicholson report. Mr Rumbles intervened to ask, "Does that mean that I will be able to go to my local supermarket and buy wine"—he did not say wine, but I assume that that is what he meant—"at any time of the day or night?" Those two approaches are potentially incompatible and we must address that point. We cannot say that it is okay if people are going to behave responsibly, but that if they are not, we will take the facility away.

Alcohol fuels a significant proportion of the problems that are associated with antisocial behaviour. Hardly anybody is prosecuted for selling drink to people who are under-age and hardly anybody is prosecuted for aiding under-age drinkers in getting alcohol. Other members have asked how we can enforce the current law, but I have not heard any suggestions about how we can do that.

Sensible proposals that cover drinking in the open air were enacted recently, but the law is almost unenforceable. Along with one of the local councillors, I went to discuss with the police the situation in the Byron Square area in Northfield in my constituency—that situation was one of the principal reasons why I invited so many people to come to talk to Hugh Henry recently. When I asked the police why they did not prosecute people for drinking in the open air, they explained that they need to have two witnesses. Who is going to stand up and say, "See him—he was drinking"? Even if they did, that is still only one person's word against another, so the police also have to get the receptacle from which the drink is being taken and take it away for analysis. That is why it is unlikely that the law in its current format will deliver any change. Either realistic laws that are enforceable will have to be introduced, or we will have to accept a slightly lesser standard of proof in some cases in order to take action.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. The member is in his last minute.

I hope that we can produce solutions to the problem. The Executive has conducted many consultation exercises during the past four and a bit years, but this one is perhaps slightly more meaningful than many of the others have been. I accept that in this case the Executive is genuinely looking for alternatives, although whether that is because it does not have the answers is another matter. I would like us to take a very close look at how the current legislation on alcohol sales and alcohol consumption is enforced.

I look forward to seeing what contributions and suggestions Brian Adam will make during the consultation on the Nicholson committee report. I invite other members to put forward their views.

I draw the chamber's attention to an initiative that is taking place in the Doon Valley in my constituency. Doon Academy, working with the local community police, has issued pupils from secondary 3 up to secondary 6 and their parents with a letter and photographs that show some of the graffiti, vandalism and problems that exist in the local area. The idea is to encourage parents to talk to young people about the issue and ensure that they are aware of the dangers and difficulties that they may get themselves into by being involved in under-age drinking. That is a practical and positive example of the police and schools working together to get the community involved.

It would be fair to say that this summer the public, in communities throughout Scotland, have spoken out as never before on the need to step up measures to rebuild respect and responsibility in our communities. It is very important that, when we are talking about antisocial behaviour, we talk also about what we are trying to do to promote responsible behaviour in communities, among both young people and adults.

Communities have told us that they value young people and that they want to give them the opportunities to thrive. That is why we are committed—as we have been committed over a period of time—to increasing the number and range of services to divert young people from offending, as well as to targeting those who need the most support to change their behaviour and those who, frankly, need to be punished for a continuing problem of serious offending. We have not just sat back and done nothing, as some members seemed to suggest this morning; nor are we rushing, inappropriately quickly, to legislation. We are taking a measured approach, and it is absolutely right that we consult on it.

Let us look at some of the things that were happening in our communities while the consultation process was going on. A total of £1 million from the Justice Department was allocated, through the community safety partnerships, to some of the difficult, disadvantaged areas that members have been talking about to provide access to activities for young people. People in those communities and in working-class areas do not take kindly to the notion that everyone who is brought up in poor circumstances is likely to turn out as an offender. Over the years, many people who have been brought up in extremely disadvantaged circumstances have known the difference between right and wrong and have encouraged their children to stay on the right side of the law.

In West Dunbartonshire, passes for swimming, skateboarding and access to BMX parks were handed out as part of a project that involved local authority staff and the police. The final evaluation of that work will not be available for another month or so; however, early indications are that the police in that area are reporting that the number of incidents of youth disorder declined by 13 per cent. We can make a difference by putting in resources.

The councils in Edinburgh and Glasgow already had a comprehensive programme of access to council-run facilities, so they decided to target what were seen as the hot-spot areas, taking in street-based activities and trying to engage with some of the young people who had not been involved previously. The council in Dundee involved young people in various events, including live bands and a film project. Throughout Scotland, children and young people were given the opportunity to participate in sport and leisure. Some local authorities chose to use the money in rural communities to give young people transport to enable them to access the facilities.

This is not about demonising young people. I do not know how many times we will have to say that to get the message through. This is about providing a range of resources and responses that will divert young people and tackle inappropriate behaviour when it occurs.

If this is not about demonising or stigmatising young people, can the minister explain why the word "plague" was used and tell us who the Executive is talking about as a plague?

I do not understand the position of some people on this issue.

Who is the plague?

The communities that we represent tell us of the difficulties of a relatively small number of young people who terrorise local residents. I would think that the communities that Carolyn Leckie represents, and which I represent—

I live in one of those communities.

I live in one also, and I see the problems daily. We are making the right response to divert people from offending and to tackle it when that is appropriate.

Through the investment that has been made over the past couple of years, we have created new projects that will allow the children's hearings system more opportunities to place young people. The money will also provide additional close support and intensive, community-based projects to try to keep young people in their communities when that is possible. When that is not possible, they may require to be removed to secure accommodation. I want to make it clear that we will continue with our proposal for electronic tagging as one of the measures that might be taken when it might be in the best interests of the child to stop their being involved in the kind of behaviour that endangers them or others.

I have not heard any member deny that too many of our communities are wrecked by a hard-core minority whom we should target. It would be helpful if the minister would take care—outside the chamber, as well as in it—to stress the fact that we do not think that all young people are engaged in antisocial behaviour.

I do not know whether people are not hearing what is being said or are choosing not to listen.

Outside the chamber as well as inside.

Absolutely. This is not about demonising young people. The majority of young people are law-abiding. I want to be on the side of those in the community who want to regenerate their communities and tackle problems, including the problem of the small minority of young people who cause the most difficulties. If we do not do that, we fail those communities.

The one constructive message that I would give to the ministerial team is that this debate has happened too early. It would have been far more constructive to have had the debate after the report on the consultation had been published. Then, the Executive ministers could have come to the chamber to list the options that were available—on a non-vote basis, if they insist on doing it that way—and the Parliament would have had a chance to contribute after the event. We can all list loads of examples of problems in communities that are caused by a few people, not all of whom are young—I stress that right from the start—and that has been fairly common today.

There are many examples of antisocial behaviour, such as school-burning, which has cost Aberdeenshire Council a fortune in the past few years. Road-racing is another example. Of course, there are good people who have cars that they do up and with which they behave sensibly—in Aberdeen, people work with the police to run a good scheme on Beach Boulevard. However, there are other groups that operate between, say, Alford and Kemnay in Aberdeenshire, which are several miles apart. Members of the groups phone each other's mobile phones to ensure that the one police car that is available in that huge rural area has no hope of being in the right place at the right time. By the time that the police car shows up, a community will have been terrorised either by noise or by people fleeing through a village.

The issue in that case is quite simply police numbers. Many members have raised that issue today. Community wardens will not have the powers to deal with people like that. A couple of policemen in a police car would be needed.

Does Mr Davidson accept the point that Johann Lamont made earlier today, which was that people need to take on responsibilities? Surely we are not suggesting that we want a society in which we expect people to behave only in the presence of the police.

We do not want that sort of society but, unfortunately, people such as those whom I described are cocking a snook to law and order in many rural and urban communities because they know that they are unlikely to be picked up. People, particularly pensioners or single mothers, are scared to comment if there are unruly people living near them or in their streets, because they do not want to be victimised. It is important that we think of the victims.

In that regard, I congratulate Aberdeenshire Council. Recently, the residents of two or three flats were being terrorised by music that was being played at all hours of the night by a group of young men who lived in another flat. The council officers went in, used their powers, took persuasive action and were successful. There are good news stories out there.

This morning, the Minister for Communities talked about organisations and public service institutions working better together. We are not arguing about that, but we want to know where we are headed. What are we going to do about supporting family life? That is where most people are set examples and are taught about civic responsibility. We must bear in mind that to have the freedom of movement, speech and everything else that we enjoy in this country, we have to have a sense of responsibility and of what our actions might do to others.

This morning, we talked about a number of subjects, but we did not get into the drugs scene. One of the biggest problems in North East Scotland is drug-related crime, such as people trying to feed their habit through break-ins and muggings. That situation is almost out of control in North East Scotland. After the offenders have been in court, they are put on detoxification programmes. That is fine, but can they also get access to a rehabilitation programme to ensure that they are kept off drugs? If they cannot, they will reoffend. I spoke to a young drug addict who told me that he did not want to have to commit a crime such as pushing over an old lady in the street to ensure that he got the rehabilitation treatment that he needed after his detox and that he wanted to receive that treatment in the community.

This morning, much was made of the issue of alcohol. Last year, I visited an off-licence in the north of England that I had visited a few years previously and saw that it had set up a system to protect its staff. It was a busy place, which had been set up like a bank kiosk with revolving trays to bring the money in and put the goods out so that the staff were protected.

We are getting to the stage that staff are terrified to work in some health premises in Scotland, such as out-patient departments, because they are abused by the people—theoretically, they are patients—who, often through their own fault, require to come in for treatment.

Those are the issues that concern the people on the street. Most communities have problems in one way or another. They often come in from outside—they are not always in the village. We need the minister to make a bit more of an effort to come up with options. I do not mean that they should be signed and sealed, but the minister should come to the Parliament with a series of options for how we can get access to recreation for all age groups. How do we deal with community transport in rural areas? Facilities might be available 15 miles away from rural communities, but there might be no way for people, especially the young, to get there and that is a problem. Many good community groups are trying schemes to overcome such problems.

It is all about tying people into their communities and giving them a sense of ownership of and responsibility for their communities. It is also about making people feel secure, so that they are not terrified to open their doors at night or to go out in the dark. That happens too much, all over Scotland.

I appreciate that antisocial behaviour is the responsibility of more than one ministry and I agree with some of the comments that both ministers have made. The ministerial team needs to give a clear statement of what it has found out in the consultation and of the options, so that the Parliament can discuss them properly. The debate should not have been about us all telling the bad news, but about us considering options to improve the situation and give people the sense that their community belongs to them as much as it does to anybody else.

We have heard a lot of testimonies from members about the situations in their communities, and I will offer a testimony about my community. I live in an area of north Edinburgh that is not part of a social inclusion partnership. It does not receive specific funding and is not an area of multiple deprivation, which other areas of Edinburgh are.

In my area, the problem of the breakdown of relations between some of the young people who live there and some of the rest of the community has grown over the past year. By breakdown of relations, I mean fear, particularly among elderly residents of the community, about the large groups of young people that we see. There has also been a rise in vandalism and petty crime. A few months ago, I had my bathroom windows smashed by a group of young people who were chucking stones around on a Saturday night.

We had a public meeting—it is that kind of community—which I attended not as an MSP, but as a member of the community. There was a lot of talk about the problems and what we were going to do. I was pleased to see that everybody realised that the problem was not a plague of wild neds running through the community and that solutions were needed, not blame and finger pointing.

We identified the massive decline of provision for young people in our community. The last youth club shut a couple of years ago, partly because, as we are not in a social inclusion partnership or an area of multiple deprivation, there is no funding for such schemes. That is a genuine problem.

More than that, there is a problem with the policing in our area. My community has benefited over the years from good, conscientious community policemen who were in the community to develop relationships with the young people, knew when people were starting to step out of line and acted at times as mentors. That was highly successful. However, since operation capital—the reorganisation of the police services in Edinburgh—the police have been driven far more by priority and deal with what they consider to be more serious crimes. That has resulted in less attention being paid to developing community relations and less time being available for the community policemen to be in the community.

That change has resulted in a faster reaction time when a serious incident develops, but in practice that means that there is no response to phone calls about category 3 or 4 offences—reports of problems of vandalism and of groups of young people on street corners. Only when the situation becomes more serious do the police cars come in, lights blazing. That transforms a situation in which relations between the police and young people in the community have been generally positive. The situation escalates and young people are criminalised because the only response to problems is Z cars coming in, lights blazing, rather than the genuine community policeman.

I welcome much that ministers have said, but we must re-emphasise the role of community policemen and recognise that this problem affects not only communities that suffer multiple deprivation, but the whole of Scotland. The problem should be tackled by encouraging good community relations and good community policing. We should not wait until a problem escalates, as it has in my area, and it becomes necessary to send in the police cars.

Will the member comment on the power to disperse groups? For example, in my constituency there is a gathering point to which 30 or 40 youngsters come. If the police do not come in until a serious incident has taken place, the youngsters may have fled. Good community policing might identify that spot as a place where there are likely to be problems and youngsters are likely to be drawn into antisocial activity. People who want to prey on vulnerable young people who are drinking may also be attracted to such areas. In those circumstances, is it legitimate to consider using the power to disperse crowds, because of the danger that the situation poses to youngsters and its impact on the local community? That would be good community policing, rather than something reactionary, as has been suggested.

There are areas in my community where young people gather. They have gathered there since time immemorial, because those are the obvious places for young people to gather at. That is not the problem, so it cannot be solved by dispersing the young people around the rest of the area.

In my area, good community policing meant that the police knew the places where young people gathered, because those were the obvious places at which to gather. Occasionally the police were there, keeping an eye on things and checking that the situation did not get out of hand. That has been lost—community policemen are not around, because they have been sent to deal with priority calls elsewhere in the city. When things get out of hand, the only reaction is for the police—often police from outside the community who do not know the individuals concerned—to go in heavy handed. That is the problem in my area. Instead of letting situations escalate and going in heavy handed, the police should ensure that there is good community policing.

Thank you for letting me speak in the debate this afternoon—I was not able to be here this morning because of a constituency engagement. However, I followed the opening speeches and noted the passion that colleagues brought to the chamber.

I know that many members spoke eloquently about their experience of work with local communities. It is right that we bring such issues to the chamber. It is our duty to reflect the struggles that our constituents face and to consider what new legislative measures are required to tackle the unacceptable behaviour in many of our communities. There will be no easy, quick solutions. We need to consider long-term measures that are available to the police, local authorities and voluntary sector organisations, so that they can work together to support local communities that are addressing the problem of antisocial behaviour and to improve the quality of life in communities.

Today's debate is also an opportunity to consider the effectiveness of some of the new projects and innovative approaches that have been put in place across Scotland. That consideration must take place in the context of the massive investment in our schools, the sure start programme and the opportunities for jobs and training that people have not had for a generation. We must consider not just the tough measures, but the opportunities that are available. I see the new facilities, including local leisure and sporting facilities, that are open to young people in our communities. However, there are still gaps and problems with the management of some of those facilities, because of the antisocial behaviour that we are experiencing at the same time.

New money is coming through for local projects to address the needs of young people who get caught up in a cycle of offending and are going off the rails, but that money is not enough. We will also have to focus on some of the issues that Margaret Curran has raised. We have to approach measures on antisocial behaviour from the perspective of protecting our communities and acknowledging the damage that antisocial behaviour causes.

I have talked to pensioners in Stenhouse and Saughton who are living on tranquillisers and in a state of fear because of daily harassment and abuse. It is our job to stand up for those pensioners and not to let such behaviour go unacknowledged and unchallenged. We must ask fundamental questions about how to challenge people who engage in antisocial behaviour. Sometimes they need support, but they need to be challenged as well. We all know the impact that antisocial families who are out of control and living on the edge have on our communities. It makes me angry that that behaviour can go unchallenged, not just for months, but for years. If you talk to people in local communities, they know exactly the kind of problems that some of those families cause. A range of responses is required, from prevention right through to enforcement. The system has to act much faster and much more effectively.

A lot of innovative work is going on in Edinburgh. I support that work and would like to draw it to the attention of the chamber. The new housing investigation team takes antisocial behaviour seriously. It works with tenants and has the sanction of eviction for people who do not take their responsibilities towards their neighbours seriously. Acceptable behaviour contracts are about challenging people's behaviour, but they are also about negotiating with people and working with them to ensure improvement. The neighbourhood support team has been established to support families and to work through complex issues that may have been around for years, but also to challenge those families. More money is needed for programmes of alcohol counselling and drug rehabilitation, and for more intensive family projects such as those in Dundee and those that are being developed in Edinburgh.

This process is not just about supporting people—part of the process is about concentrating some families' minds. Antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, but another issue arises: not challenging antisocial behaviour means that we are failing children and young people. We are letting them drift into trouble. They are failing to develop themselves as human beings and they are not getting the skills, confidence or life opportunities that we take for granted and would demand for our own families. That is not good enough. We need sanctions because we need to put responsibility firmly back on some of the parents in our communities who do not care for their kids properly. They are not taking their responsibility seriously. Let us consider parenting orders and antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s when appropriate. We should not use them in every single circumstance, but they should be part of a range of options that local authorities and organisations have available. Let us consider short Scottish secure tenancies, so that we can negotiate with tenants to ensure that they take responsibility and do not flit from tenancy to tenancy, causing problems across the city.

We must ensure that the work of the police, social work departments, housing departments, education departments and the voluntary sector is much more integrated. That is beginning to happen in Edinburgh. We are beginning to see the use of protocols to share information. More work on that is needed, and it will be needed across Scotland. We must invest in projects to ensure that pilot projects that are working—and beginning to turn communities round and make a difference—get the chance to bed down and be extended.

Edinburgh now has five teams of neighbourhood wardens. They are popular in the community because they are beginning to make a difference. Let us consider what practical measures we can take for the long term. All our agencies need to work together in partnership with communities—not imposing solutions, but working with people to turn round some of our most disadvantaged communities that are suffering from antisocial behaviour.

It is important that we do not consider only council tenancies and do not simply look to the local authorities to consider their own tenants. We need to ensure that good work is expanded across housing associations, which, in my area, are beginning to come to the table and do some really good work. Let us not ignore the private rented sector, which is an increasing problem in some of our former local authority housing estates. Let us not forget owner-occupiers. Real issues arise in that sector.

The coming bill is our chance to consider a range of issues, from prevention to the tough bits at the end. Let us ensure that all issues are on the agenda and that the measures taken are proportionate and effective.

All MSPs know that the problems that are caused by antisocial behaviour are the number 1 concern of the majority of our constituents. In Edinburgh South, a large proportion of the telephone calls and letters that I have received since 1 May have been to do with antisocial behaviour. The people who made them are fed up with being the victims of antisocial behaviour. The complaints come from the elderly, shopkeepers and families who are constantly being harassed and intimidated and whose lives are being made miserable.

The vast majority of young people are good people. Deputy Chief Constable Tom Wood of Lothian and Borders police will tell you that between 24 and 30 youngsters in Edinburgh are causing him problems. In my constituency, the number of problematic youngsters is even smaller—it is eight. The local superintendent would say that, if those eight people were not causing problems in Edinburgh South, more than 30 per cent of the crime problems in that area would be completely solved.

I warmly welcome the Executive's antisocial behaviour consultation and I thank the Deputy Minister for Communities for coming to my constituency on 2 September to listen to the views and hear about the problems of residents and community leaders in the Inch, Moredun, Gilmerton, Southhouse and Burdiehouse. The fact that the consultation was launched by the First Minister, the Minister for Communities and the Deputy Minister for Communities in south Edinburgh shows that the Executive realises the problems that many of my constituents have. The current situation is not acceptable.

Mary Mulligan, Jack McConnell and Margaret Curran heard about a new initiative that the Edinburgh SIP and the police are funding, which is called the youth action team. It comprises four dedicated officers who have their own transport and who deal only with youth issues. Although it is early days, the evidence so far is very positive. Youngsters are engaging with police officers. A group of youngsters was recently given the chance to take it in turns to sit in the cage in the back of a police van, which they thought was wonderful, because they found it exciting. Those youngsters were engaged by the officers in question. I suggest that that pilot scheme is good and could be adopted elsewhere.

I want to make a point that has been mentioned by the City of Edinburgh Council and SACRO, which is that the police and local authorities need a range of measures—a toolkit. The consultation document is entitled "Putting our communities first", and that must be at the core of what we do. Whether we like it or not, both the perpetrators and the victims of antisocial behaviour are members of our communities. We need to be seen to provide justice for victims, but we also want young people to be turned away from antisocial behaviour.

I was encouraged that the Deputy Minister for Justice backed measures to help victims this week. Many of my constituents tell of the hopelessness that they feel when they do not see offenders being adequately targeted. I agree with SACRO's view that restorative justice is an effective response because it challenges young people. It can be a daunting prospect for any young person to meet their victim face to face, acknowledge guilt, take responsibility and make amends. That is when justice is seen to be done. However, I do not agree with SACRO's view that ASBOs are not a useful tool. The police and the local housing department would agree with my view, which is that they are very effective. I am glad to clear that up for the Minister for Communities.

It is vital that young people are kept out of the court system and I fully support the continued use of children's hearings for under-16s. All possible measures should be available to those panels, including acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour orders and parenting orders, which all make young people and their families face up to their behaviour and change. However, none of those measures will be effective unless they are properly managed and—much more important—fully resourced. My discussions with the children's panel, housing officials and the police have made it clear that resources are key to making all those new measures work.

We also want young people to have more to do. Alongside the antisocial behaviour strategy, we must have commitment to decent, low-cost or free community recreation facilities. Mark Ballard has mentioned the loss of such facilities in his area. We need to provide young people with alternatives to kicking a ball against people's houses, spraying graffiti or making a nuisance of themselves.

A good example is the City of Edinburgh's "Go4it" programme, which was introduced three years ago as a pilot study in south Edinburgh. The programme is being pushed out right across Edinburgh during school holidays. In my view, boredom often leads young people to misbehave, but the programme keeps them occupied in many different types of activity. It is a good example of how to engage with young people and get them involved in sport and all sorts of other things that they want to do.

I reiterate my support for tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour, and for restorative justice—but the victims must see it being done.

It is clear that every member in the chamber is concerned not only about the public perception of antisocial behaviour, but about the antisocial behaviour in their particular constituencies and communities. However, wherever such behaviour occurs and whoever perpetrates it, the Executive is wrong to put the blame on the young in our society. I take issue with the Executive's emphasis on youth crime.

Ministers have taken pains to point out, during the debate and outside the chamber, that we are not blaming young people completely for antisocial behaviour. We are identifying specific groups in the community who are causing mayhem and havoc. Certain groups of young people are plaguing their communities. I use the word "plaguing" advisedly. If such young people are not to blame, who does Sandra White think is to blame?

Hugh Henry protests too much, and he proves my point by using the word "plaguing" and other such words in reference to young people. He can protest as much as he likes, but he is labelling young people. Only a small minority of young people are to blame. To impose electronic tagging and ASBOs on young people under 16 will only exacerbate the problem. [Interruption.] Does the minister want to come in?

Michael Matheson has just been on television with me, where he said that the SNP agrees in principle with the tagging of under-16s.

I said that this morning.

Sandra White has just said something different.

I gave a personal view, to which I am entitled—as everyone is.

Is not one of the big advantages of electronic tagging that it identifies the offenders who cause most harm, keeps them away from where they previously caused mayhem and prevents them from wielding influence over other young people? Tagging means that, rather than stigmatising a whole group, individuals are targeted.

It seems that the Executive wants to target young people and once they are tagged and out of sight and out of mind the Executive will do nothing for them. Tagging is not the answer for everything and neither is locking people up. Antisocial behaviour does not begin in the cradle. As Johann Lamont said, young people of 25 or 26 are not born to be antisocial. We have to target the reasons that kids become antisocial. We should not put a tag on kids of 12 to 15 and label them for the rest of their lives as someone who was antisocial. We must look at the causes of antisocial behaviour.

I believe that the Executive has got it wrong and that tagging is a knee-jerk reaction—and I am not the only one who believes that. Many organisations believe that tagging is wrong. For example, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations believes that tagging and other Executive proposals are wrong. Hugh Henry may laugh, but I think that such organisations are more expert than he is. He should remember that they have a right to speak on the issue. Hugh Henry's attitude shows the contempt that the Executive has for anyone who says that it might be wrong.

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry. I do not have much time.

It is a rather sad indictment of the Executive when its attitude is, "Do what I say, not what I do." It is little wonder that the youth of this country have no respect for politicians in the Parliament when the politicians of what is supposedly the Government of Scotland speak of young people in the way that they do. It is an absolute disgrace that, in a debate such as this, a minister can laugh at proposals from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and other agencies.

I will skip a part of my speech and go on to something that Hugh Henry quite likes.

I know that Sandra White has taken a lot of interventions and I thank her for that. I understand the logic of where she is coming from. Believe me; I have spent a lot of time with stakeholder interests discussing people's concerns about our policies, so the criticism that is levelled is unwarranted and unfair. Sandra White is attacking us for the same reasons that her front bench agrees with our policy. She should take her arguments elsewhere.

Margaret Curran cannot have her cake and eat it; she should not try to do that. I am giving examples, not just of how I feel, but of how others feel. Margaret Curran should not turn things back on me; she should examine her proposals.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations represents an awful lot of people and it is one group that disagrees with tagging. However, in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, we had a consultation involving people from throughout the community, including the police, and they all agreed that tagging was a tool that we could use. Surely, we have to take those views into account as well.

Sandra White has one more minute.

I know of a consultation that took place in Maryhill—I see that Patricia Ferguson is not here—where people did not agree with every single Executive proposal. I know that, because I know people who were there. The Executive should not think that everybody in Scotland agrees with it simply because it can produce a group of tenants who do agree with it—there are other people out there as well.

We are talking about preventive medicine—ways to cure or stop antisocial behaviour. Why does the Executive not open up schools to kids at night and let them use facilities such as swimming pools and fitness suites? That is a measure that could be taken easily. What about good citizenship classes? Why do we not have those in schools, as an hour in the curriculum, so that kids can learn about good citizenship when they are five years old? We do not have that at present. I suggested it at the previous Local Government Committee and I spoke to young people from the Scottish Youth Parliament who agreed absolutely that good citizenship should be part of the curriculum.

So, there are two ideas that the Executive could start with: good citizenship classes from the age of five and the opening of schools and community centres to allow the kids to use them instead of someone saying to them, "If you're standing on the street corner, you're doing something wrong; we're right and you are always wrong."

The fact that I am the second elected representative from Greenock and Inverclyde to speak today on the subject of antisocial behaviour speaks volumes. A matter of hours ago, my Westminster colleague David Cairns told the Labour party conference some home truths about antisocial behaviour. He was the warm-up act for David Blunkett, who reminded us that we are best of all when we are in touch with the people. That is appropriate today.

I will probably be followed by another five-minute bleat about the poor misunderstood souls who instil fear and apprehension into our neighbourhoods and communities. Some of the contributions that we have heard from SNP members have a serious contradiction at their heart. We all agree, I think, that it is a small minority of young people who cause a disproportionate amount of damage to their communities. We also agree that young people are the biggest victims of that sort of crime. How can SNP members paint our determination to crack down on bad behaviour as a demonisation of young people? As Johann Lamont asked, do we demonise all men when we tackle domestic violence? Do we demonise Christians when we tackle sectarianism? Of course we do not. If I detained the chamber every time an SNP member put forward an argument that did not stand up to scrutiny, we would have to work a night shift.

Let us look at the SNP's partners in crime. Colin Fox, from the Scottish Socialist Party, today denied his community a voice. Do not tell me that the people of the Inch in Edinburgh do not have their lives affected by drug dealing and violence. He toed the party line.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. The member may come in when I have finished my point.

Colin Fox put political correctness before public safety and he showed us the SSP's two colours as the neds' champions and the bams' buddies. The SSP has turned its back on every decent, hard-working family and young person in Scotland, to spread the myth—no doubt grown in some organic coffee shop somewhere—that antisocial behaviour is a menace that politicians have somehow manufactured for electoral purposes. That denies victims their experiences and it adds insult to injury.

I have heard it said that a little knowledge—

Will the member give way?

I mentioned Colin Fox, so I give way.

I thank Duncan McNeil—the Bernard Manning of the Labour back benches.

Is the member aware of the briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which urges

"the Executive to remember that enforcement measures which do not tackle the reasons for the anti-social behaviour inevitably mean that the behaviour continues and the community therefore continues to suffer"?

Does he agree that communities in Inverclyde and the Inch want a solution to the problem, not simply stiffer penalties?

We must tackle the issue. Significantly, someone brought to my attention the fact that when Colin Fox mentioned all the public services this morning he omitted—perhaps intentionally—the role of the police. That signifies the SSP's thinking. When we talk about housing federations and others, we must determine whether it is the tenants who are speaking—as they are speaking to me—or whether it is the directors of those organisations.

I say to Stewart Stevenson that there is no debate in Greenock about what is or is not antisocial behaviour. Anyone who has ever experienced it knows what it is. It is the repeated smashing of an elderly constituent's windows just because he did his civic duty and testified in court. It is the gang violence that results in young people being unable to use their own community hall—a lot has been said about them in this debate. It is not all in their minds. It is not all on the telly. They are certainly not faking it to get me a few more votes.

Will the member give way?

No. Sandra White had the opportunity to make a speech. It was obvious that she had not written one.

We do not have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Over the summer, Scotland's decent, hard-working communities spoke through their contributions to the consultation on the forthcoming antisocial behaviour bill. They left the ministers of this Parliament in no doubt about the truth. Just look at what the people of Greenock and Inverclyde had to say when they were asked for their views. Ninety three per cent said that it is very important for the Executive to bring forward new antisocial behaviour laws. Only 7 per cent did not want electronic tagging extended to under-16s. When asked if parents should take more responsibility for their children, 86 per cent agreed strongly, 14 per cent agreed, none disagreed, none disagreed strongly and not a single person did not know.

That is the real story. That is what our communities are saying to us. It is our duty as elected representatives to act. Mistakes were made in the past. The reason it has taken a whole parliamentary session even to get to this stage is that when we knew there was a problem, when we saw it in our own communities, when we had constituents telling us how their lives were being made a misery, we listened to the wrong people. We have heard more of that today. We have listened too long to the housing officer who could not do anything. We have listened too long to social workers. We have listened too long to elements of the police who said that there was no problem, or that existing legislation was sufficient to deal with the problem. Well, no more. Let us listen to the people who know what they are talking about. As the Minister for Communities considers her response to the consultation, I ask her to examine closely what people with first-hand experience of antisocial behaviour are saying, rather than the thoughts of the apologists who just read, write and talk about it.

I am only too pleased to be able to take part in this important debate. I was sorry that during the summer recess I was unable to welcome Margaret Curran to my constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, because we could not merge our timetables, but she would still be very welcome. I think that she would appreciate and—I hope she will not be offended—learn from a visit to that most rural constituency to see at first hand not just antisocial behaviour in a rural setting, but some of the possible remedies that have been tried and tested with various degrees of success.

In her opening speech this morning, the minister referred to the unacceptable behaviour of a small minority. I do not disagree with her in stressing that it is only a tiny core of persistent offenders who cause the vast majority of problems, as many members have mentioned. In most rural communities, everyone knows—probably by name—the even smaller number of people who drive that tiny core of persistent troublemakers, as Mike Pringle remarked. When I was growing up—all too long ago I am sad to say—the village bobby also knew the troublemakers by name. The bobbies usually nipped troublemaking in the bud with a bit of judiciously meted-out discipline. I can still feel my ears ringing from more than one occasion. Those days appear to be behind us, although I do not think that we should lose sight of the significance of local neighbourhood policing in dealing with antisocial behaviour.

If the minister is still able to come to my constituency, I would like her to visit the communities of Kelloholm and Kirkconnel—two neighbouring villages that share a level of social deprivation often associated with the ex-mining villages that they are. I would like the minister to meet the community policeman who works there and who approaches his work with a commendable zeal, determined to deflect the youngest in those communities from a course that all too often ends up in custody. He does that by engaging with them at the earliest possible age and by doing his best to ensure that their questions are answered. He tells me that he is often asked, "What's it like in the Army?" He does not just give them a booklet or show them a video; he gets the armed services to come to the community to explain what it is like to be in the services and to show some of those kids that there are real alternatives to the dole, which is too often seen as an acceptable career option. The community policeman has virtually given up on the older teenagers as being hell-bent on their almost predestined course since before he took up his duties. However, the lesson appears to be that if we engage with young people early enough, that engagement can pay dividends.

On the older teenagers who make up the gangs about which we have heard during the debate, a constituent made a remark to me yesterday that made me sit up and listen. We were talking about yet another example of mindless vandalism in his community, when he said, "Of course, we must remember that they are our punishment." I think that he was right. Our generation—the parents of those young people—has got something wrong. Therefore, surely it is incumbent on us to try all the harder to put that something right.

A pilot scheme called the Ninian project, which was designed to do just that, took place in Whithorn, in my constituency—another scheme that the minister would benefit hugely from visiting. The pilot was simple: policemen—not wardens or finger-wagging council officials—were regularly put on the beat, where they were visible. It worked. A community that was bedevilled by vandalism and antisocial behaviour slowly returned to comparative calm. People of all ages could walk in the streets, day or night, without fear of abuse. A real sense of community was beginning to be re-established. However, the funding for the project came to an end and, only two weeks ago, £4,000-worth of damage was done when every window in the village hall was smashed in.

The solution could be simple. We must engage with the very young, both through education and through communities; we must put policemen back on the streets to watch out for persistent offenders; and we must ensure that, when the ultimate sanction has to be applied by bodies such as children's panels—I think that Robert Brown referred to them this morning—the resources are available to enable those bodies to act. We must also return to the family, which is the body that is ultimately responsible for our children's good behaviour.

A constituent who operates a business as a contractor recently reported to the police that two of his mechanical diggers had been vandalised. The police duly investigated—taking quite a long time in that instance. The day after he had reported the incident, his diggers were burned out, at enormous cost to him. In the same area two weeks later, one of his men was unloading equipment from a van when he came under fire from an air rifle. However, my constituent and the man did not report the incident because they did not think that the system could deal with it or ensure the safety of their equipment and they did not think that the perpetrators would be brought to book.

The challenge that we face, as responsible politicians, is to restore trust in the system. I do not believe that that is the prerogative of any one party, and today's debate has shown that, if nothing else, members from all parties have something worthwhile to contribute. My hope is that the minister will accept that truth in her final deliberations, as the bill takes shape. It will be a much better bill if she does so.

The implications of the bill to tackle antisocial behaviour are far-reaching. In my opinion, it is a knee-jerk reaction to the problems caused by the small minority of people in our society who create misery for others. The key must lie in our education system.

The Scottish Executive has had four years. Tony Blair first came into power with the mantra, "Education, education, education," and we have still seen no progress in dealing with the problem of pupils who can be easily identified, even in nursery school, as young people who will develop social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. They go into primary 1 and the primary 1 teacher may say, "This child needs support. This family needs support." They then move on to secondary school, by which time the problem has escalated, but nothing has been done about it. Before we know where we are, those young people are involved in the children's panel system, which is toothless, as I have said before. I am glad that there are to be more resources for children's panels, and I hope that that will make a difference, but the biggest difference that we can make for those young people is to tackle the problems in the education system at the moment.

We must decide what time we will spend with young people and what investment we will put into their future. The first thing that we need to do is to consider the size of the classes that young people are being educated in. Classes of 30 or 33 are not appropriate for children who come with multiple needs, social problems and a lot of baggage from home, be it drug abuse, alcohol abuse or domestic violence. There are many reasons why that small minority of young people gets into trouble, but they are major and significant reasons. We must deal with those issues and support people. Tagging young people is not the answer; all that will do is to alienate them more. They will just become criminalised and decide that society is agin them, and that will be the end of that. Things will escalate until they are in secure units and going in and out of the system for the rest of their lives, perpetrating the type of acts that we are talking about trying to stop. We have got the whole thing back to front.

I agree that something needs to be done. I agree with Margaret Curran that early intervention is the key, but that early intervention must come through the education system to begin with. We need more support staff, smaller class sizes, properly funded mentoring schemes in schools and people in the community who can come in and work with staff in schools. There are some examples of good practice in mentoring schemes in our communities. We need people who are good role models who can sit down and talk to young people, listen to them and spend time with them. That is what is missing. Many young people have no one to talk to. They come out of homes where there is so much deprivation. If people struggling on casual jobs are told at short notice that they have to work the night shift, who will do the homework with the children? Those are real issues in our communities. The Scottish Socialist Party is not out of touch; we are well aware of the issues in our communities.

Will Rosemary Byrne give way?

No. I want to carry on. I have too much to say.

We must ask why young people feel disillusioned and disjointed from the rest of society. Let us give them the opportunity to sit down and talk to someone. Let us give them educational opportunities and ensure that they get chances in school so that they do not end up being a lost group in the system and start to truant. That is where it begins. Low-level misbehaviour in school gives way to truancy and builds up to offending in the community, with young people annoying and irritating people in the housing estates and communities around them.

We have the answer: we can do something about the situation if we invest in our education system. I know that I keep bleating on and on, but until someone starts to listen, I shall continue to go on about that, because it is crucial.

It is not often that the Scottish socialists agree with the Tories, but I totally agree with their point that, although we can detox people off drugs and alcohol, we have no rehabilitation facilities for them. Down in North Ayrshire, where I come from, there is counselling and there are methadone maintenance programmes, but there is no rehab for drug addicts. Many young people are suffering because they come from homes where drug and alcohol abuse are part of their lives. The damage that that does to them is unbelievable; it cannot be measured. We have to deal with such situations. The drug addict or the alcoholic can be put into a deprived housing estate but, unless there are facilities in place to support that person through decent rehab, counselling and housing support workers, we can forget about it. I know that there has been some progress, but I do not see it.

There are better neighbourhood schemes in my community. I would criticise some aspects of the schemes, but some of them are doing well and on the whole we should welcome them. However, why can children from one housing estate get free access to leisure activities in the summer, whereas children living across the wall in another housing estate do not get the same opportunity? If that is what targeting means—that some people will get the benefits, while others will not—then we will not win the battle at all. It is time that the Executive listened. Ministers need to listen to the people concerned. I know that they have done their consultation, but have they talked to the teachers and to the parents who want help but cannot get it? That is where they should start.

I am pleased that the Executive has dedicated a full day to debating this important issue. Colleagues from all parties will have heard from constituents who live in fear in their communities. They will have encountered the frustration of people who—all too often—have found out that there appears to be little that authorities can do to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour.

Members will have heard from people like constituents of mine in Shotts, who feel like prisoners in their own homes. They are afraid to turn on the lights at night, in case those who torment them and smash their windows know that they are at home. Members will have heard from people like those living in Gartness, a small village in my constituency, which was relatively quiet until recently. Now they are terrorised by a group of young people who are completely out of control, and who have succeeded in destroying the community. Their parents are either unwilling or unable to address their behaviour. The person who is calling for change in that community is not an old person or even someone in their 50s; he is 16 years of age, and he is demanding action from the Executive. Those are just two examples, and I could give many similar ones from throughout my constituency.

Such cases are not media hype, as has been suggested today. I will not be told that politicians are exaggerating the problem; we most certainly are not. We are representing the real, legitimate concerns of our constituents. We owe it to them to deliver laws and services that will make a real difference to their quality of life. Being well-meaning is not good enough for my constituents. We need effective action to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we need it as soon as possible.

I am pleased to say that North Lanarkshire Council is already taking significant steps to tackle antisocial behaviour. The antisocial task force, which is led by Matt Costello, provides a 24-hour service to families suffering the effects of antisocial behaviour. It is the leading antisocial behaviour team in Scotland.

Fiona Hyslop suggested this morning that North Lanarkshire Council has failed to take effective action to obtain ASBOs. It is not the first time that the nationalists, and Fiona Hyslop in particular, have misled the chamber—and I am glad that she is here to listen to this. Since its inception, the antisocial task force has successfully obtained 51 antisocial behaviour orders, 75 per cent of which have never been breached. That demonstrates that offending and antisocial behaviour can be changed.

They have been applied for.

No—those ASBOs have been obtained, Fiona. Since the end of June, when interim ASBOs came into play, we have obtained seven. That encouraging news proves that interim ASBOs work. The antisocial task force has told me that interim ASBOs are delivering speedier responses to antisocial behaviour and can be processed in a matter of days, rather than weeks.

Problems still exist. We have heard much in the debate about the language that is used. I say to the Scottish Socialist Party that Rosemary Byrne should perhaps have thought about her language before she suggested at question time that we should embark on a campaign of council tax non-payment. How will that help to provide resources in communities throughout Scotland? I say to Carolyn Leckie, who has accused the Minister for Communities of wanting to hunt children from the streets of Scotland, that people in Shotts know all about being plagued. They live night after night with young people who vandalise the electricity substation and leave them without electricity. She should come to Shotts and tell those people that there is not a plague.

I am sorry, but nobody did me the courtesy of taking an intervention, so I will not give way.

The consultation document "Putting our communities first" suggests fixed-penalty fines. That suggestion is important. It would be effective for low-level offences to be processed in that way by antisocial behaviour teams such as the task force in North Lanarkshire. That would help to speed up the process and would send a clear signal to perpetrators and the communities that they blight that antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated.

Members received a briefing for today's debate from the Scottish Retail Consortium. I have sympathy with its concerns, because antisocial behaviour takes place in and around shops that serve our communities. Workers deserve and have the right to work in peace and free from fear. However, stronger action needs to be taken against the small minority of retailers who continue to sell alcohol to under-18s and who disregard the communities from which they take money daily.

It is right that concerns will be expressed about the impact of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and their effect on civil liberties. Personal freedom is valuable and should always be defended vigorously. However, we must defend equally vigorously the freedom and rights of the vast majority of people in Scotland, who are decent, honest and law abiding. They deserve the freedom to enjoy living in their communities free from abuse and threats. They have the right to live in safe, clean and welcoming environments. Too often, the Scottish Parliament and the Executive are accused of not listening to the concerns of the people of Scotland. The measures are proof—if proof was needed—that the Executive and the Parliament are listening to those concerns and will act and respond to tackle them.

I am sorry to inflict myself on members for a second time today. Margaret Smith was due to sum up for the Liberal Democrats, but unfortunately she is not very well and has had to pull out of the debate. I will pick out several themes from our discussion.

I am not sure whether the debate has been the best in which I have participated. Powerful speeches have been made, but the ability to accept the genuineness of views from other parties has been rather lacking, which concerns me slightly. David Davidson made a good point when he asked what the options before the Parliament were—he might have been referring to a deficiency in this kind of debate.

It is important to proceed on a reasonably solid evidence base. As several speakers have said, there is no argument among the parties about the nature and extent of the problem but, as I said earlier, the solutions are a complex amalgam of policing issues and dealing with the causes of the problem. We should get the solutions right and be able to analyse and decide what works, what difference certain measures will make and what does not work.

I ask the minister what consideration has been given to the effects of the proposed antisocial behaviour bill and what the targets are that the Executive expects to achieve through the legislation. I am aware that it will be difficult to measure reductions in the sort of crime that we are debating. If the Executive was to adopt certain policing measures, would they produce a reduction of 10 per cent in those crimes? I used policing measures as an example, but I also want to know whether we can get a handle on the resource end, as far as the children's panel is concerned.

There is an element of agreement across the chamber about the problem of resourcing the children's panel system and about the resources that children's panel members have to call upon for the disposals that are available to them. The problem is similar to that of resourcing the disposals that are open to the courts. Can the minister put a figure on the extent of the shortfall in facilities and in the number of social workers and youth workers? A mapping exercise could assist us. Is such an exercise taking place across the country?

In the first session of the Parliament, the Audit Committee and the Auditor General for Scotland looked into the youth justice system in Scotland. Some excellent work was done in that piece of work on the need both to benchmark and to monitor the use and frequency of the disposals that are available to children's panels. I agree strongly with Robert Brown on the point that he made about monitoring. It is a key issue that needs to be built upon in future.

I welcome that helpful intervention from Sarah Boyack. In among all the strong feelings on the subject, we have to have a mechanism by which to assess—perhaps the word measure is too strong in this context—which initiatives are successful. Will the additional policing powers have a particular effect? What will be the effect of the additional resources that are put into the alternative remedies? Which remedies are more successful than others? We need to know what works and what does not. In trying to cut through the debate, it is important that we have that information.

I have some concerns about tagging and the power of dispersal. In particular, I remain to be convinced about the merits of the latter. Civil liberties issues are involved when people who are not otherwise committing offences are penalised for being in a dispersal area that has been so designated because of problems with antisocial behaviour in that area. I am also concerned about the sanctions involved. I know that various procedures will be undertaken before sanctions are imposed but, if we are to impose significant sanctions on people who are in breach of the provisions on dispersal areas, how will those sanctions relate to those that are imposed on young people who carry knives or who commit assaults or other serious offences? We need to bear it in mind that Scotland has one of the highest prison populations in Europe. Apart from the fact that people are taken out of circulation, the sanction of detention does not solve the problem in the long term.

The issue is difficult. I ask Robert Brown to consider a situation in which 30 or 40 young people gather outside his garden, drinking and causing mayhem and vandalism. When the police are called, the young people disappear; when the police leave, the young people return. People in communities are distressed and find such situations difficult to cope with.

It is also difficult for the police to identify the crime that has been committed. Surely the problem of causing public fear should be an offence. If so, the dispersal power could be used to address it. The issue is not one of moving the young people on but of keeping them away from the community in which they are causing distress.

Although I take Johann Lamont's point and do not rule it out, I remain to be convinced on the matter. We have heard arguments both ways on the subject. Much of the answer lies in the detail of how the dispersal power will operate. How will it relate to other systems, including the children's panel system and the court system? How will it tie in with the support mechanisms, which, at the end of the day, are the only real answer?

In her opening speech, the Minister for Communities spoke about a ladder of intervention. That is a helpful way of approaching the matter. On that ladder of intervention, as Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending rightly said, the courts are undoubtedly the place of last resort. Considerable emphasis should be placed on people. We should be able to put in place workers of all sorts, such as social workers and youth workers, in family situations and in the community. We need people who can relate to individuals, many of whom come from fractured backgrounds.

I think that it was Johann Lamont who pointed out that many people from poor backgrounds know the difference between right and wrong. Although I entirely accept that point, I suspect that the people in that situation—

Will the member give way?

No, I am in my last minute.

I think that the parents of those people also knew right from wrong, had adequate parenting techniques and, notwithstanding the poverty of the home background, were able to give their children a good start in life. Unfortunately, that is not the case in other situations. It is clear that we have to deal with the lack of adequate parenting.

Finally, I echo Janis Hughes's point about off-licences in particular areas, which is another important issue that we have to tackle. We have to keep the right balance on this matter and move forward with today's debate behind us. I am sure that the ministers will take on board the comments that members have made.

After sitting through this helpful debate, I have picked up quite a number of points and learned much about the issue. First, I want to refer to a Children in Scotland briefing which says:

"Of the approximately 1 million people under 16 in Scotland only 1.4% are referred to the Children's Hearings System".

However, no member in this chamber should underestimate the damage that that 1.4 per cent can do. In many cases, those young people wreak havoc and cause fear in their local communities. In that respect, I acknowledge David Davidson's point about detoxification and rehabilitation, which illustrates the joined-up thinking that happens in the chamber.

In her speech, Annabel Goldie wondered whether there was a need for the proposed legislation. I wonder what has been done in response to the findings and recommendations of the Audit Scotland performance audit report entitled "Dealing with offending by young people", which was published in December 2002.

Will the member give way?

I ask Cathy Jamieson to let me finish this point, because I am trying to be constructive.

I want to highlight some comments in the report's executive summary. For example, it says:

"A small number of young people commit a large proportion of offences; but the evidence about whether this problem is growing is inconclusive."

It goes on to point out that

"It takes an average of 5½ months for a child to reach a Children's Hearing.

It takes between 7½ and 8½ months on average to get a court decision on a young person …

The proportion of offence grounds referred to Hearings by Reporters varies from 10% to 47% …

Some assessment reports on children in the CHS are late and some are not done at all because of staff shortages. The quality of reports is mixed."

Moreover, the report says that

"in the children's system we estimate that around 400 children are not getting the service they need and to which they are legally entitled, mainly because of staff shortages."

It also mentions a

"lack of specialist services and social workers";

refers to a vacancy rate in children's services social workers in October 2001 that was equivalent to "183 whole time staff", which is obviously a matter of concern; and says that

"The quality of Social Background Reports must improve".

Finally, the report recommends that

"More programmes must be developed"

about "'what works principles" and that

"New programmes should be monitored and evaluated".

I hope that Mary Scanlon welcomes the fact that the Executive took that Audit Scotland report very seriously. I also hope that she welcomes the introduction of fast-track children's hearings, which are beginning to show some success in reducing the length of time that is taken to get young people through the process, where they are at risk of becoming serial offenders.

Will Mary Scanlon confirm that she welcomes the introduction of more than 1,200 early intervention places, 3,000 victim mediation and reparation places, 1,000 places to help to divert young people who might re-offend and 1,500 places in programmes to prevent people from becoming involved in other offending behaviour? Does she also welcome the fact that 530 families have been supported through additional funding? [Interruption.] There is more, but I do not have the time to list everything.

This is my speech, not the minister's. However, she set out those points in an excellent manner. As a member of the Communities Committee, I think that before we pass the proposed legislation it would be very helpful if she could update the committee on how she is addressing the issues highlighted in the Audit Scotland report, particularly the shortage of social workers. It is important to examine the existing system and existing powers to see if they can be better used. Children in Scotland also suggests that an analysis of the existing laws should be conducted prior to the introduction of new legislation.

There is no doubt that services throughout Scotland are patchy. A briefing paper that we got from the City of Edinburgh Council suggests, as Sarah Boyack said, that there appears to be excellent practice in Edinburgh. The council seems to be addressing the issue. Could that good practice be rolled out throughout Scotland?

ASBOs have been mentioned, but there is again inconsistency: some ASBOs are completed within six months, while others take more than nine months. Paul Martin made an excellent point when he pointed out that a policeman had asked him what an ASBO is. We need proof that everyone in the system is aware of the powers that are available before we take any further action on the issue.

We also want an evaluation and examination of the use of reparation and restorative justice in local communities and in the children's panel system. That would be extremely helpful. Even Save the Children states its firm belief that

"legislation and statutory powers already exist that can deal with the anti-social behaviour outlined by the Scottish Executive."

I use those examples in the aftermath of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which we passed knowing that the staff, services and infrastructure were not in place. Following the passage of the 2003 act, a review is being carried out by Dr Sandra Grant of existing services and infrastructure. I ask constructively whether it would not be more sensible to have a review of existing services before considering new services.

Many members have acknowledged that tackling antisocial behaviour is a complex problem in the context of remedial and legal actions. However, we should not lose sight of what can be done in education and I welcome Rosemary Byrne's commitment in that respect.

Two weeks ago I visited Inverness prison, which has excellent education programmes that are improving year on year. The main programme in Inverness prison, as in many prisons, addresses illiteracy. One prisoner said that when he was at school, he could not keep up with the rest of the class and was left behind. It was only when he got to prison that he could learn at his own pace, and he said that he was making excellent progress.

A couple of days ago on a visit to Lossiemouth High School—Stewart Stevenson was also there—we were told that although pupils were given forms to notify their parents of the detention that they had been given, many of the forms were found littering the pavement. Before we take parents to task we must ensure that they are made fully aware of their children's behaviour—it would be well worth using a 19p stamp to ensure that that happens. People in Lossiemouth, from school pupils to members of the over-60s club, were unanimous in their view that bad behaviour is being rewarded. Whether or not that is true, it seems to be the perception.

There seems to be an assumption that we can do everything in the Parliament. We must include our councillors in this issue as they have an enormous role to play. An example from Lossiemouth is that no one could play tennis during the summer because the net was broken. It does not take much effort to address such problems, but they are not our responsibility—they are matters for local authorities.

The debate has been interesting and there have been some interesting and heated exchanges across the chamber. At one point I thought that the Presiding Officer was going to have to apply for an ASBO, given the way in which some members were behaving, but I will name no names. That demonstrates some members' depth of feeling on the issue.

If there is one point on which everyone in the chamber agrees, it is that antisocial behaviour is a problem in our communities that must be tackled. Many members have highlighted individual cases. We have all had constituents complaining about the issue and the way in which it has affected their lives. We also heard from some members how antisocial behaviour has affected their own personal lives.

We have all witnessed in our own communities the way in which antisocial behaviour can have a corrosive effect on a community, undermining people's quality of life within their own environment. Karen Whitefield is correct to say that people have a right to live in a safe and peaceful environment. The Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that that is possible.

It is important that we put the issue of antisocial behaviour in context. Several members have recognised the fact that antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by a small minority of young people—sadly, often on a persistent basis. We must also be clear about the distinction between antisocial behaviour and criminality. Duncan McNeil talked about someone selling drugs, being involved in some other type of drug crime or smashing up someone's car. Those are criminal acts. We do not want to allow ourselves to start downgrading such acts by wrapping them all up as antisocial behaviour. Additionally, as the minister recognised, antisocial behaviour is not peculiar to young people, as adults are also involved. We must keep that in mind in devising future strategies to tackle the problem.

Donald Gorrie and Colin Fox highlighted the fact that antisocial behaviour is often symptomatic of more deep-rooted problems in a community. Poverty, alcohol abuse, drug abuse and other factors are not excuses for antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, when we are tackling antisocial behaviour, we must remember that we also have a responsibility to tackle those underlying problems of poverty, drug abuse and alcohol abuse, which lead to people becoming antisocial in their behaviour. The best way in which to tackle such behaviour—as with all illnesses in a society—is to try to prevent it.

A very valuable project is being run by Falkirk Council and Barnardo's. The Cluaran project focuses on working at school with young people who are beginning to exhibit antisocial behaviour. It intervenes by working with the young people to help to maintain their education and by working with their parents to develop their parenting skills to deal with the behaviour. I am not saying that that is the solution to the whole problem; I am highlighting it as an example of a broader view that is being taken of the issue. We should ensure that we have such provision in place to tackle the problem. If we do that, we can offset the possibility of young people going down a route that may lead to crime.

The debate has highlighted the need for agencies to work together in dealing with the problem. The police, social work services, community education departments, local authorities and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service all have different roles to play and must accept their responsibility.

Donald Gorrie talked about the need for kids to have somewhere to go, and Sandra White mentioned the possibility of schools' being open in the evenings. However, it is not just about providing facilities for young people to use; it is about providing facilities that they are interested in using. Many community centres lie empty while young kids hang about the streets because they do not want to use the community centres. If we are going to provide community facilities, they must be appropriate for children and young people. Organisations such as Community Learning Scotland have an important role to play in ensuring that appropriate facilities are provided to divert children and young people from hanging around the streets.

Does Mr Matheson accept the fact that there is a problem in some of our communities when innovative youth facilities such as youth shelters are proposed? Communities have opposed such facilities because they think that they will attract the wrong type of young people. Does he agree that, when we are trying to provide the facilities that young people have requested, we must educate our communities on the part that they have to play in ensuring that those facilities are successful?

I agree entirely with Scott Barrie. It is important for communities to recognise that they have a part to play in dealing with the problem of antisocial behaviour.

I have been out on patrol with the police and have witnessed situations in which kids who have gathered in a park, not causing a disturbance to anyone in particular, have been moved on by the police to a residential area. The police have then gone back, later on, to move the kids on from the residential area and they have gone back into the park. If a shelter is to be provided for local young people, it has to be done in a fashion that is sensitive to the local community's needs, but the local community also has to accept that it has a responsibility to find a place where such a facility can be provided.

The issue of parental responsibilities is important and parents have a key role to play in challenging young people who get involved in antisocial behaviour. I was out with the police one night when they picked up a young, under-age lad who had been drinking too much. When they got him to the police station, they telephoned his father, who was told that his son was at the police station, had been causing problems in the community and was in no fit state to make his way home. His father's response was: "Just keep him there, he's out of control."

Such attitudes are not acceptable. Parents have to accept their responsibilities. However, if we introduce a measure such as parenting orders, we must not simply tell the parents to do something; we must give support to those who are having difficulty dealing with the problems. If we introduce tagging and parenting orders, we must ensure that the agencies that will bear the brunt of the work entailed in those systems have the resources to do the job that is necessary. The issue is not only to do with tagging someone to keep them away from an area; it is also about challenging their behaviour. I do not want them to be kept away for a while only so they can return to cause problems again when the tag is taken off.

Last week, Glasgow City Council was still interviewing members of staff who wanted to do social work training courses at university, which start this week and next week. There had been a mix-up in the funding between the council and the Executive and the council did not know how many places it would be able to fund. The people who are starting those courses will be working with children and families—they are the people we are talking about in this debate. If the proposals that we have been discussing are introduced, we will have to ensure that local authorities have the resources to deliver what is necessary.

The issue of policing has been highlighted by a number of members. Alex Fergusson and Mark Ballard talked about community policing in particular. At this week's joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, there was an interesting discussion about intelligence-led policing. I believe, as was stated by Douglas Keil of the Scottish Police Federation, that community policing is intelligence-led policing. The police work with the local community and can pick up on problems at an early stage. Sadly, however, community constables are often used for other duties.

We have heard about the record number of police officers, but we never hear about the extra responsibilities that the police have. Those responsibilities mean that, when people phone the police about antisocial behaviour, there is a delay in the police response or a lack of the resources that the police need to ensure that they can go to the areas in which problems are occurring.

The Executive has created high expectations that it will tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour and that it has the solutions to it. There are those who think that the SNP is opposed to the Executive's proposals, but what we are doing is scrutinising the Executive in the normal democratic fashion and probing the proposals to determine whether they will deliver the changes that communities are expecting. As a responsible Opposition party, the SNP has a duty to ensure that the Executive is properly scrutinised. We must get our approach to this matter right because our young people are our future.

I call Mary Mulligan. You have 10 minutes at the most, minister.

It will be difficult to respond to all the points that have been raised in that time, but I will make every effort to do so.

Today's debate has shown clearly that antisocial behaviour is an important issue for Scotland and for the Scottish Parliament. People have been waiting a long time for such a discussion and we must respond to their concerns. I will respond in a few moments to some of the specific points that were made during the debate.

We have demonstrated very clearly the following general truths. Antisocial behaviour is a grim reality for many communities throughout the country, and communities are fed up with it. It is a complex problem for which there are no easy answers or miracle cures. To tackle it raises difficult and controversial issues that go to the heart of public intervention in people's lives, and action to tackle antisocial behaviour cannot be seen in isolation from our wider policies on justice, education, regeneration, the environment, housing and all the Executive's other responsibilities, which is why ministers from the Executive have worked together to put together the debate.

The debate has shown that the Executive was right to give such priority to the issue. Robert Brown said that some members were unwilling to accept others' views during the debate, but it is difficult to do that when members make comments such as those that Carolyn Leckie made in today's Daily Record about Margaret Curran, saying that she wants

"these people to be disappeared in the same way the street children of Brazil do, hunted down by gangs of vigilantes".

That is the kind of unreasonable comment that we must challenge.

We cannot tolerate a situation in which so many people's lives are made a misery. We cannot content ourselves with simply saying that the existing framework ought to provide all the solutions. Annabel Goldie said that solutions already exist, but those solutions are not working, and the current system needs to be improved if we are to tackle the problems. We cannot say that it is too difficult; we owe it to our communities to act.

The debate has also emphasised two key themes for our strategy. First, effective action to tackle antisocial behaviour requires joined-up action from a range of agencies; it is not the preserve of any single body. Secondly, if we are to change behaviour—that is what we want—a balance has to be struck. We need support and early intervention to promote social behaviour and to challenge and change unacceptable behaviour.

I saw examples of people supporting positive behaviour as I visited communities throughout the summer. I saw the development of acceptable behaviour contracts in south Edinburgh. I saw the Barnardo's project in Falkirk to which Michael Matheson referred, which works with children who are on the brink of antisocial behaviour and with their parents. I also saw teenagers involved in car restoration in Turriff in Aberdeenshire. However, we also need sanctions for the minority who persistently refuse to change. We must support and encourage people in positive behaviour, but we must also send out clear signals about the kinds of behaviour that cannot and will not be tolerated. That means that we must ensure that there are mechanisms for dealing with such behaviour. To duck the issue would be to fail our communities.

A number of specific points were raised and I will comment briefly on those. The first is the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s. We have heard members express concerns, but we have also heard concerns in communities throughout Scotland, as well as in the Parliament, that the existing system cannot always deal effectively with young people. Children's panel chairs share that concern. That is why we want to introduce antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s as an additional option for dealing with serious persistent antisocial behaviour by young people. Such ASBOs will not be a universal panacea and they will not be appropriate for all circumstances, but they have the potential to make a positive difference.

Stewart Stevenson suggested that we might be going to criminalise young people unacceptably. When I visited south Edinburgh, I was told how youngsters who are involved in antisocial behaviour are sometimes not tackled or challenged. People have to put up with that. The police sit back and wait until those young people are 16 and they can criminalise them. The introduction of antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s would stop that happening and, I hope, act to divert those young children and ensure that, when they reach 16, they do not head straight for the jail. It is important that we recognise that ASBOs are part of the package.

There has also been controversy about tagging. We recognise that views on the matter differ widely and we are aware of the issues involved. Tagging for under-16s, whether through the courts or through the hearings system, would have to be introduced carefully and kept under close review. However, we believe that it could play a useful role, alongside other measures, for young people who would otherwise be headed for secure accommodation. Others agree. The children's panel chairmen's group said that tagging might, under certain circumstances, be a useful disposal for a children's hearing. The Scottish Youth Parliament's justice committee said that tagging would be a positive step and would mean that fewer young people had to go to jail.

Does the minister acknowledge that the Scottish Youth Parliament voted down the proposal when it debated it in full session in this chamber?

It is important that we hear the views of all our young people. The outcome of the vote may have been as Patrick Harvie describes, but some young people—perhaps those who are closer to the situation—recognise that tagging has a role to play.

Today it has been suggested that our antisocial behaviour strategy pre-empts the forthcoming review of the hearings system, or otherwise undermines the hearings, or cuts across the Executive's youth justice strategy. The document on which we consulted, "Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-social Behaviour" contains the following sentence:

"The Children's Hearings system is unique to Scotland. We are committed to a review of the system: but that review, and the proposals outlined in this paper, will respect the fundamental ethos of the system, which is based on considering the circumstances of the child in the round."

It is essential that we recognise that the strategy is not an attack on the children's hearings system. It is about adding to the disposals that the hearings system can use—children's panels are asking for that and we are seeking to provide it.

Will the minister consider doing away with the upper age limit for those who serve in the children's hearings system, which reinforces the myth that those who have retired have no understanding of young people's problems? I take this brief opportunity to thank Donald Gorrie, Margaret Curran, Sandra White and Alex Fergusson for their excellent speeches today.

I acknowledge that many people have a contribution to make to the children's hearings system. That is why we want to support it. We are not downgrading the hearings system and we are not trying—as Fiona Hyslop suggested—to stigmatise disabled children. It is insulting to the hearings system to suggest that it would allow that to happen. The way in which the hearings system works will ensure that children who have special needs are not stigmatised.

Will the minister give way?

No, I do not have time—I am in the last minute of my speech.

The issue of dispersal has also generated a lot of heat. However, let us be clear: those who have expressed reservations about it have not done so because they believe that the police should not disperse groups of people who are causing problems for residents in hard-pressed neighbourhoods. There is general agreement that such action has a part to play in giving those communities some respite. However, communities do not see the evidence that powers of dispersal are being used effectively. That is why we are considering introducing a new strictly targeted power to assist the police to act.

Today's debate has given us food for thought. It has shown that the issues are difficult and controversial. Above all, it has shown the pressing need for action. Although members will concentrate on the legislative process, we know that it is the delivery of legislation—with, I say to Mary Scanlon, our partners in local authorities—that will make a difference to people's lives.

Antisocial behaviour can take many forms, but its effects are always the same: people's lives are made a misery; the fabric of our communities is degraded; neighbourhoods are blighted; crime increases; and the consequences affect all of us. We must act quickly and decisively to create the conditions in which antisocial behaviour can be tackled effectively, whenever and wherever it occurs and we are determined to do just that. We look to the Parliament to support our efforts, in the interests of all the people of Scotland.