Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 19 Feb 2003

19 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Henry, Hugh Lab Paisley South Watch on SPTV

Johann Lamont has been tireless and determined in her efforts to see action taken to curb anti-social behaviour in the communities that she represents. Much of what she has said on the issue has reflected the views and concerns that other members have expressed in committee and in debates. Johann Lamont is right to say that the people whom she represents and whom we represent want to live in peace and quiet with some dignity. They need to be supported and protected from the minority of individuals who seek to make their lives a misery.

As Johann Lamont said, members have expressed some concern that anti-social behaviour orders are not as effective as we had hoped that they would be. The Executive acknowledges that there is scope for improving how we tackle the problem, because we know that the orders must be effective to protect the people whom we represent.

Interim anti-social behaviour orders were part of the bill from the outset, but we are now moving to support a wider range of measures to tackle anti-social behaviour more effectively. At stage 2, members made clear their concern that interim ASBOs could become subject to delays similar to those that full ASBOs have experienced. That is a worry, because such delays have undermined ASBOs' effectiveness and people's confidence in the obtaining of ASBOs.

We have reflected on members' comments and considered European convention on human rights implications and other issues. We are satisfied that, provided that the right to intimation is maintained, the removal of the explicit reference in section 38 to

"any representations made by or on behalf of"

the respondent before an interim ASBO is granted has no ECHR implications. The court still has discretion to consider any representations that are made following intimation.

In supporting Johann Lamont's amendment 4, I acknowledge that it will have the same effect as Stewart Stevenson's stage 2 amendment 44 would have had.

Amendment 93 will add a new section to the bill. We will extend the power to apply for ASBOs and interim ASBOs to registered social landlords. That will make it easier for registered social landlords to obtain ASBOs against persons who behave anti-socially and who reside in, are otherwise on or likely to be on or in, or are likely to be in the vicinity of, an RSL's properties.

It is important to extend the right in that way. Many good social landlords throughout Scotland want to protect their tenants. The housing stock transfer in Glasgow will mean that Glasgow's public sector housing will comprise solely properties that are managed by social landlords. Those landlords will have the opportunity to tackle anti-social behaviour by private residents in the vicinity of their properties. As Johann Lamont suggested, some complications make it more difficult to tackle such behaviour in places such as the west ends of Glasgow and Edinburgh, but we will reflect on those issues.

Although anti-social behaviour orders can be made against persons in any housing tenure, most ASBOs have been made against local authority tenants. The perception among social landlords has been that local authorities do not attach enough priority to cases that involve social landlords' tenants. Whether or not that perception is justified, we want to take immediate steps to make it easier to apply for ASBOs.

Like local authorities, social landlords will have to consult the police before applying for an ASBO. The local authority will have to be notified of the social landlord's intention to apply for an ASBO. We will issue guidance to all relevant authorities before the new powers are brought into effect.

I commend Johann Lamont for amendment 109. We make clear our commitment to joint working. At stages 1 and 2, some members complained that local authorities, the police and other agencies do not work closely enough together and do not share information enough. We think that many improvements have been made to such practices in recent years, but through the bill, we will make clear our intention for that joint working to take place. Local authorities and the police are key agencies in dealing with such behaviour and the requirement to prepare a joint strategy will go a long way towards ensuring a co-ordinated approach from organisations.

Together with our housing legislation and initiatives such as the introduction of community wardens, the amendments can have a major impact on the anti-social conduct that, cumulatively, causes considerable alarm and distress to many in our communities.

I commend Johann Lamont for her amendments. I understand, and am wholly sympathetic to, her concerns about the extent of anti-social behaviour in many of our communities. She may be speaking for her constituents in Glasgow Pollok, but she echoes the views of many MSPs throughout Scotland.