 The next item of business is debate on motion 15615, in the name of Liam Kerr, on tackling antisocial behaviour. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Liam Kerr to speak to you and move the motion for up to eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We rightly spend a great deal of time in this chamber discussing high-profile crimes, but we rarely discuss something more low-level, which can never the less be devastating in its own way, and which can have a major impact on the quality of people's lives, the cohesion of their communities and the amenity of the space in which they live. That is antisocial behaviour. Presiding Officer, we have all experienced this at one time or another, people coming into the garden or the stair and relieving themselves or smoking. The guy so drunk he can't stand shouting at kids. The neighbour is blasting out music that reverberates the floor. The window of the community centre is being panned yet again. Your local corner shop is being tagged with spray paint coming out the next morning to find every car in the row keyed. I have witnessed all those incidents in recent months in Aberdeen, which is not surprising because statistics show that there are around 41 incidents of antisocial behaviour per day in Aberdeen. In fact, throughout Scotland there are nearly 1,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour every day. Those are just the ones reported to the police. That is over 340,000 antisocial behaviour incidents last year. It is increasing. The overall number is up 5 per cent, disturbances up 9 per cent, noise incidents up 5 per cent, vandalism up 5 per cent. Those are not the big ticket issues. They don't make the evening news headlines, but make no mistake. Those kinds of incidents on a repeated and escalating basis are inconvenient for some, aggravating for others but debilitating and terrifying for many. Lying there each night, knowing the music will probably come on at some point, so even if it doesn't, you can't relax. Or listening as you hear the muted conversations on the corner outside your window punctuated by the smashing glass. We also know from the Crime and Justice Survey that deprived communities still suffer the most from crimes such as vandalism, litter and property crimes. If we allow that to continue unchecked, we are telling communities that they do not deserve to live free of this low-level intimidation and disruption, that they are not worthy of a safe and stress-free environment and that we will continue to allow their community cohesion to suffer while sending a signal that more serious criminal activity will similarly go unchecked. Maureen Watt, I thank the member for giving way. Will he join me in congratulating organisations such as Street Soccer, run by RGU in Aberdeen, who will go into areas in conjunction with the police, where they are experiencing that type of anti-social behaviour that he describes? Liam Kerr? Yes, absolutely. I will congratulate that organisation. I am very familiar with the work that they do in Aberdeen, and I have no doubt that there are many such organisations throughout Scotland that are worthy of merit. I do think that we need to try something new to arrest the fact that such behaviour is rising. We are telling the elderly, the parents with young children, the night shift worker trying to sleep during the day that the impact on them, on their community, on their health of anti-social behaviour is not important enough to be dealt with. We do not think that that is being taken seriously enough, and I hope that by backing our motion today, the other parties will show that they agree. Since 2004, under the Anti-Social behaviour Act, police officers have the power to impose a fixed penalty notice to people aged 16 and over who are behaving in an anti-social way. There are three key advantages to an on-the-spot fine. It is a swift and effective punishment for low-level, anti-social and nuisance offending. It is a highly visible deterrent to others, and it frees up police officers to spend more time on our streets dealing with perhaps more serious crimes. It is a fine of £50, payable within 28 days, failing which it will go up to £75 and become a court debt. Once paid, the matter is over. A short, sharp shock was no criminal record attached. Fixed penalty notices are an important tool, forming part of a wide range of powers which enable the police and local authorities to exercise judgment when tackling anti-social behaviour. The words of Ash Denham, the minister, just last week, and I agree. But anti-social behaviour is rising, while at the same time fixed penalty notices have declined by 75 per cent, from around £55,000 in 2013-14 to around £11,000 last year. There seems to be a disconnect, and the motion that I move in my name seeks to provide a solution. In England and Wales, they have a similar scheme with a crucial difference. Penalty offences are divided into lower and upper tier offences, depending on seriousness, and I track penalties of £60 and £90 respectively. In Northern Ireland, there is a two-tier system. The fine is £45 or £85 depending on severity. Daniel Johnson makes good points, but I was wondering if he acknowledged the fact that it is not necessarily simply a cost-benefit and an increase may disproportionately impact those who are least able to afford it. Liam Kerr? I do not know that it will automatically disproportionately impact, but I do think that the member is starting to raise an important point. I note the amendment that the member has put into the motion, which I think there is merit. I will listen to the debate as we go through, but I think that, in principle, the points that he is going to make are supportable by the Scottish Conservative Party this afternoon. In Scotland, there was a review of fixed penalty notices, which concluded that, although police felt that having them gave greater opportunities to deal with antisocial behaviour, the existing fines are insufficient for more serious behaviour. My motion is a simple proposition that I think can remind those communities blighted by antisocial behaviour that this Parliament has not abandoned them and simply asked Parliament to support the principle of an increased penalty for those incidents of antisocial behaviour that are more serious. Looking at the English model, that might include things like possession of and throwing fireworks, or breaching a fireworks curfew. I know that the minister is concerned about that, so this is a solution. Criminal damage of less than £300, minor shoplifting on a first offence, selling alcohol to an under 18. I know Daniel Johnson is rightly concerned about shop workers, so this is a solution. This will ensure more crime can be punished, direct swift justice is delivered to low-level offenders, ensuring a direct link between offence and punishment, and it is a more effective deterrent than we currently have. For the purposes of debate, I have suggested that, although the £50 base line is retained, the more serious tier will be fixed at £100. A basis on the rest of the UK, and I genuinely believe that there is a more deterrent value, but I would be interested to hear members' views on whether that is the appropriate level. Everyone deserves to live in a safe community, free from the menace of vandalism, noise, disruptive drunken behaviour. A higher level of fixed penalty notice for more serious anti-social behaviours is a straightforward piece of secondary legislation that gives constables on the ground the tools that they need, delivers instant justice for victims and communities to counter the feeling that low-level offending is ignored and ensures a strong immediate link between the behaviour and the punishment. Perhaps most importantly, given that it is often the most vulnerable such as the elderly who are most intimidated by anti-social behaviour, we will send a signal that we will protect those people from the behaviour that blights their communities. By increasing the fixed penalty notice for the worst anti-social behaviour, it is time to make the fine fit the crime. That is all very well, Mr Kerr, but would you like to move the motion? I move the motion in my name, Presiding Officer. I now call on Ash Denham to speak to and move amendment 15615.2. Up to six minutes. The Scotland that I want to see is where everyone, regardless of background, is able to live in peace, feeling safe in their homes and communities and being able to raise our families in secure environments free from the threat of abuse, fear, harassment or intimidation. I do not want to see anybody caught up in any form of anti-social behaviour and, as a citizen, I do not want my family or my community to be subjected to it either. None of us do. That is why the Scottish Government and its partner organisations are keen to continue to deliver effective ways of tackling anti-social behaviour and its causes. Effectively, tackling anti-social behaviour requires a partnership approach, with Police Scotland, local authorities and court services all playing a central role in delivering positive outcomes in communities right across Scotland. There is much truth in the old adage that prevention is better than cure, and that is why we must never lose sight of the fact that prevention activities, including early interventions, must work hand in hand with robust criminal justice legislation. We have seen evidence of a long-term sustained reduction in the experiences and in the perceptions of anti-social behaviour in communities across Scotland. That is reflected in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, which shows that the percentage of adults who think that people behave in an anti-social manner in their local area has fallen from 46 per cent in 2008-9 to just 29 per cent in 2016-17. The estimated percentage of adults who have experienced vandalism has also almost halved between 2008-9 and 2016-17. Liam Kerr. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. That is Perceptions Minister. You have got to go out into communities and find out what is really happening on the ground, where, frankly, people are still experiencing this. Do you not agree with that? Ash Denham. All the evidence suggests that there is a long-term sustained reduction in all crime in Scotland, including anti-social behaviour. All the evidence and the member would be wise to look at the data on this and he would see that for himself. However, we are not complacent and remain absolutely committed to ensuring that our justice partners have the powers to further reduce anti-social behaviour. It is absolutely vital that we continue to build on the diversionary and preventative work that has been undertaken over the last decade, work that develops the skills and resilience of our young people and helps to make better positive life choices. Since 2008, we have committed £92 million to the cashback for communities and other community initiatives, delivering nearly two million activities and opportunities for young people across all 32 local authorities in Scotland. £17 million from cashback for communities has been committed for the period of 2017 up until 2020, with a focus on tackling inequalities and providing opportunities to raise the attainment, ambition and aspirations of young people from areas of deprivation across Scotland. We have also invested more than £3.4 million since 2009 for delivery of the No Knives Better Lives campaign and programme. The programme is informed by and complementary to wider youth diversionary interventions and activities that aim to prevent anti-social behaviour and offending occurring in the first place. The mentors in violence prevention programme is currently being developed in 140 schools across 22 local authorities, helping to lead young people to more positive destinations. Where young people are involved in or at risk of offending, we remain committed to an integrated whole system approach, tackling deeds while also taking account of wider needs. That approach is driving improvements. In order to support our continued commitment to early intervention, to prevent offending, to cut reoffending and to keep young people out of formal systems as far as possible, we have also committed £1.6 million over two years for all local authorities in Scotland to support, renew and extend the whole system approach, allowing for continued partnership working and strengthening links between youth justice, community justice, education, the third sector and children's services, as well as, where possible, extending the whole system approach to young people aged 21 and up to the age of 26 for care experience young people. That funding is making a real difference in communities. I will give away. Jamie Greene I hear everything that the minister is saying, but I have not heard a single reason, not one single reason, why you do not support the concept of a higher penalty for more serious offences. Could you please furnishes with some detail as to why you do not support the motion? Ash Denham The first thing that I would say is that fixed penalty notices are only one part of an integrated approach in our justice system. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that a higher penalty notice would have the desired effect that the members are seeking. We are always listening to our justice partners and we keep that under review and we will speak to them about it. We will ask them, because they are the experts in that, as to whether it is something that they would consider at the moment. We have no plans to raise it, but we will keep it under review. For example, in Fife, a social work assistant is being employed to make connections with schools, strengthening the operational links between those schools and Fife's diversion group. In South Ayrshire, the money will be used to extend their garden project, which is targeted at young people aged 15 to 18 and up to 26 years old for care experience young people who are at risk of offending or have been engaged in low-level offending. Those young people are learning new and transferable skills, like how to communicate better in a group and how to work together in a team. Skills that will support those young people as they move to positive adulthood. While fixed penalty notices are an important tool in our response to antisocial behaviour, they form only a part of the wide range of powers that already exist to tackle antisocial and criminal behaviour. Our approach is robust, it is holistic and we will continue to build on it to deliver the Scotland that we all want to see. Yet again, that is all very well, but would you like to move your amendment? Formally moved. I now call in Daniel Johnson, our time lucky, to speak to and move amendment. I will start by moving the amendment. 15615.3. I move that very amendment in my name. I think that this is an important debate for very much the reasons that Liam Kerr set out in his opening speech. Much of the time when we talk about crime in this place, it is the big crimes. Very often it is the lowest-level activities that have the biggest impacts in our communities. It is right that we examine the measures that we have to tackle those things. I agree with many of the sentiments that the minister set out. Ash Denham is absolutely right. We must focus on prevention, because ultimately that is the way that we reduce crime. It is very much the approach that Labour took in its time in government and indeed antisocial behaviour orders were established by the last Labour Government. I would argue that they are a key component of the many reasons and the multiple factors, both those and beyond those, why we have observed a long-term decrease in crime. However, we can have no complacency, which is why I think that we need to look at this. While we support the broad thrust of this motion, we do have reservations about it, which I will detail later on. However, if we look at antisocial behaviour itself, those are problematic behaviours ranging from behaviours that we might characterise as neighbours from health through to littering, youth nuisance, drunken and disorderly behaviour, vandalism, and those can have real impacts in our communities. Indeed, my colleague Claire Baker will set out some specific issues that she faces in her area. The key character is that those are behaviours that may be low-level, below the threshold of criminality, but they have a much wider disruption and, more important, can lead to a context that does lead to wider criminality, both in terms of the context that provides, but also in terms of the individual that those can be precursor behaviours that go on to criminality. That is why we need to equip our police with the tools that they need to make those early interventions so that they can intervene with behaviour before it reaches that criminal threshold, but nonetheless is problematic. Indeed, what we must have is a robust approach to crime, but we must also have a robust approach to tackling those underlying issues. Or, if I could quote a certain former Labour shadow home secretary, we must be tough on crime, but also tough on the causes of crime. However, that approach very often overly focuses on that first element of that phrase, and we must look at the causes and look at those causes both in terms of the social impacts that I will go into in a moment, but also the evidence. I think that the evidence is an important part here, because those are orders that are widely used. They are effective, as far as we can tell. Indeed, 50 per cent of police disposals are of this antisocial behaviour, but we lack clear evidence in terms of the impact that they have in detail. Indeed, we have seen recent declines, and I think that I would urge the Government to have a more in-depth look at why that has been declining and whether we could improve them. However, the most recent study that we have is the Scottish Government review into fixed penalty notices in 2009. Indeed, the police reported that they felt that they were useful and proportionate. Indeed, 83 per cent of the responses from the police said that they saved time. From that perspective, they clearly have a role and that they are effective, but I think that we need further evidence, which brings me to the Conservative motion. As I have alluded to, I do believe that it has merit, but it is narrow. It overly focuses on one particular measure. As the minister pointed out, I would certainly agree that we need to look at a broad range of measures if we are going to tackle those behaviours and tackle them early. However, we must also look at the context. It is hard to escape from the conclusion that poverty has a clear and direct impact on many of the behaviours that we are looking at. We have a danger of compounding those if we simply increase the penalties that are set, without any reference to that wider context. There is no evidence that crime is simply a cost-benefit calculation by criminals. I think that that is a very dangerous assumption. We have to look at other measures and at causes. That is why our amendment acknowledges the role of those measures, but it also looks to examine a wider context and to consider those things in the round. In particular, I wanted to highlight diversion tactics and policies that can be used by the police. Those are diversion tactics around housing. The Dundee Families Project and the Shelter Inclusion Project are very good examples where police use powers to divert families towards those sorts of services or in drugs. In England and Wales, there is some very good practice. Even in Somerset, in Thames Valley, where people are directed towards drug counselling and other services to divert people away from those behaviours, there are other diversion strategies around social services. Likewise, the Government has many merits, and I will conclude. However, given that it pre-empts mine, we will not be supporting it as it votes, but if it passes, we will be supporting at decision time. We must give police the tools, but we must also acknowledge the causes and context in which those behaviours take place. It is a timely debate on antisocial behaviour that blights all our communities, and I understand that and the impact that it can have on a number of people. There is a role for all of us to play in relation to that. With regard to the primary function of the police, of course, it is to guard, watch and patrol to prevent crime. I think that a visible police presence and active citizens supporting the police is an important thing, as they said. I wonder what it is that my colleague Liam Kerr is trying to achieve in respect of the motion, and indeed what the gauge of success will be. I will explain why. I have a fixed penalty notice in front of me here. It is one of a range that I could have called on. It does not have my name on the top, but, if I say a couple of important phrases out of the notice, acceptance of the notice allows for the matter to be concluded by way of a fixed penalty. Any liability for conviction of the offence is discharged, if people would understand that, and then it goes on to say that no discussion or review of the facts of this case can thereafter take place. That contrast with the situation in which, if the matter were reported, of course there is a role for antisocial behaviour orders. For instance, Mr Kerr said that he talked about repeated offences. If someone repeats an offence, if someone refuses to resist from offence, the appropriate action is for a police officer to arrest them, and you will understand that. Escalating. Escalating again is an opportunity for intervention. There are particular methods, and those are some of the things that I picked up from Mr Kerr's speech when he talked about deprived communities suffering the most. I would align myself with Daniel Johnson's comments on that. That is a wee bit of skew with the notion about community cohesion. Community cohesion requires us all working closely together. When Mr Kerr talks about trying something new, there is nothing new in that. Indeed, from a couple of the parties, I heard rehash of old phrases from past campaigns. There is nothing new in trying to deal with issues of drunkenness and deal with issues of addiction. In the very notion that what you would do with someone in a drunken state is to try to reason with them and hand them a bit of paper, and that they would have some regard to the penalty that comes from that, I simply think that that is not the case. I am very supportive. Yes, of course. Liam Kerr. I understand the point that has been made. I do hear that, but that would be new to Scotland. In the rest of the UK, we have a two-tier system, and we do not have that here. Does the member not agree that it is definitely worth trying, because it is only secondary legislation after all? John Finnie? No, the member does not agree with that. Had that been about looking how we uprate the option, as we could with the scale of fees for fines, that might be something. The reality of the situation is that someone who is under the influence of drink or drugs is not going to be influenced by the fact that it is two figures with a pine sound beside written on a note, or three figures. The reality is that we have to deal with things differently. The tremendous thing that has changed from my days in the police is that, rather than trying to resolve something there and then, with domestic abuse, take the offender out, it is a problem-solving approach that is adopted. The problem-solving approach is not to go to someone and have this piece of paper saying that is the matter concluded, often there are underlying reasons connected, whether those reasons may well be about addictions, about the pressures, poverty, as we have heard. I do not think that that is the way. What is the way is some of the routes that were suggested by the minister about some of the great community campaigns that Mr Kerr acknowledged have a role to play in that. I think that that is the direction of travel. We had an amendment that was not taken, which was a long line of Daniel Johnson, which is that it is very important that those issues and those schemes are properly resourced. We will be supporting the Government, but not the Conservative motion. Thank you, Mr Finnie. I call Liam McArthur. I would also like to thank Liam Kerr for bringing forward this helpful debate, not least in allowing John Finnie to come clean about his past history of fixed penalty notices, but I very much agreed with much of what John Finnie had to say. I think that we all agree that where antisocial behaviour burdens or indeed blights the communities are just the system needs to be equipped to handle it appropriately. I am also grateful for the opportunity to reiterate for the record my thanks to the police, local authority staff and the many organisations that exist the length and best of the country for the work that they do to combat antisocial behaviour. Every day, officers are confronted with complex judgment calls drawing on their training, experience and discretion. Fixed penalty notices are part of their toolkit. Indeed, until recently, they were so significant that they were far and away the most widely utilised police disposal. The rationale for the popularity was clear. Both the police and prosecution services could save valuable time and scarce resources by administering and on-the-spot fine. Five years after fixed penalty notices were created, time savings were described by officers as, quote, the most apan and significant benefit of FPNs. Of course, diverting people from our courts does not only free up time, as Daniel Johnson and others have referred to as the amendments that are accepted today suggest. They recognise the value of early intervention, preventative intervention measures, raising the age of criminal responsibility, and keeping people away from court in the first place is the best way to avoid them descending into repeat offending behaviour. The rationale and evidence for fixed penalty notices is clear. Others have spoken about the context, but it bears repeating. Reports of many offences covered by fixed penalty notices have decreased. Data published just yesterday showed that recordings of breach of the peace have reduced by 43 per cent in the past 10 years. Drunkenness and other disorderly conduct fell by 72 per cent, and other figures follow a similar suit. If you accept the principle of fixed penalty notices, do you accept the principle that we should have two tiers and put it up? I will come to the point about increasing the fixed penalty notices. I shared the uncertainty that a number of colleagues have expressed about where precisely the Conservatives wanted to go with the motion. Officers appear to be moving towards more lenient disposals. The fixed penalty notices have reduced and recorded police warnings have been introduced. This option was described by Police Scotland as, quote, the first step in a three-tiered disposal process, so that tiering already exists. There are important considerations in this context in this debate. It is not to say that we should not be keeping matters under review, but I am unclear as to the purpose precisely of what the Conservative motion is calling for. Is the proposal to apply a higher penalty in every case to reflect that some of them are, quote, more serious? Or does it propose a two-tier system with a range of fine levels? If so, where would the line be drawn for malicious behaviour, breaking alcohol by laws or persisting singing? There would need to be transparency and predictability. At what point does a low-level anti-social offence become a serious low-level anti-social offence? The purpose of fixed penalty notices is to be an on-the-spot fine for a minor offence. If behaviour fell into a new, more serious grouping, then police officers already have the discretion and power to escalate matters, referring someone, for example, to the Procurator Fiscal. As I said earlier, there is value in review and reflection. I am not opposed to a higher level of fixed penalty notices. Certainly, they should be enabled to keep pace with the rate of inflation. If there is an argument for increases, then it will be borne out in consultation and discussion with the professionals on the front line. However, at this point, it seems that more evidence is required before Parliament commits itself to what the Conservatives are proposing. I welcome our party's business debate today, and I fully support Liam Kerr's motion. Anti-social behaviours are a worrying and rising problem in Scotland. We must recognise its impact on our communities, and that is how we work out the best solutions. With my role in community safety, I am keenly aware of the challenges of anti-social behaviour. Incidents of harassment, abuse, bullying and vandalism are far more uncommon. They are everyday currencies. They are seeing a rise in neighbour disputes and a rise in noise complaints and a rise in disturbances. We cannot underestimate how much that makes people feel. If those offences are on-going, think of the impact that they have on mental health. Anti-social behaviour creates victims out of an ordinary person who have asked for no trouble at all. Where it can start small, it can easily escalate into more serious and offensive behaviour. At its worst, it threatens a sense of community. For the elderly, especially, it can make them feel more vulnerable and isolated. For those in deprived areas, those offences can seem just like a fact of life. In my own area, I have seen the frustration of the fear that this problem can cause. In western Bartonshire, there are more than 7,000 anti-social behaviour incidents reported in 2017-18. That means that, on average, there are 20 incidents a day in that area alone, yet, in the same timeframe, just a total of three anti-social behaviour orders were issued. Furthermore, its local council, controlled by the SNP, has not updated its strategy since 2009. How can that be acceptable? Having a current strategy will answer those offences with a relevant and powerful approach. Therefore, for me, the incidents themselves are not the sole problem, often the lack of a strong and robust response to this behaviour can worsen the situation. There is another problem in itself. To make our communities truly safer, we need a greater police presence. We cannot deny that our police force is stretched. The pressure that they face as police numbers dwindle is surely a warning sign, and without these resources, anti-social behaviour cannot be tackled to the extent that they could be. Newson's offenders can escape through the cracks. I know that this frustrates our police officers just as much as it does our communities. It is disappointing to see that the number of special constables has halved in the last five years since the beginning of Pre-Scotland under the SNP. From the veteran's perspective— Yes, I will give way. The facts of the matter are that, in the last 10 years in Scotland, police numbers are up 5.6 per cent, but in England, under the Conservatives, they are down 13.8 per cent. They may be up in Scotland, minister, but the fact is that there are far too many on the minister's role and not out on operations facing the facts. From the veteran's perspective, I know that this pathway can be of great benefit not just to the veterans themselves but to the local areas as a whole. The visibility and presence of these officers provide right at the heart of our communities is invaluable, and our police force is stronger with its assistance. For our constituents, a greater police presence will go a long way to make them feel safer and more secure, and with anti-social behaviour on the rise, surely that is an obvious move. I will give way. I thank the member for giving way. I wonder if the member could tell us how much more money the Conservatives would spend on Police Scotland, where that money would come from and whether that means that the Conservatives would not cancel their tax cuts. Mr Corry, you have only got half a minute to do so. We obviously will see what the budget debate comes forward tomorrow and what is said on the other side and the case that we put forward, but what we are saying is to put the money where it matters, and that is on the street, in other words, to see more police presence. To equip these police officers, we need an increased penalty notice. As we have heard, the number being issued is at a low time, and those fines seem to be the best way to stop offenders in their tracks. It allows police officers to take swift action against more serious behaviour. It meets justice and it can be delivered on the streets, a clear and quick deterrent that matches the crime. Of course, early intervention would be ideal in stopping anti-social behaviour from happening in the first place, but we are talking about how it should be dealt with once the harm has already been done, and for the victims of such crime, it is important that they get fair justice they deserve. For their sake, I hope that the Government will encourage this move. To conclude, anti-social behaviour goes further than being a nuisance. It is simply not right that our communities can feel less safe nor listen to. It is an injustice that these offences go unchecked and with the most up-to-date strategy in place, linked with fines that tackle the crime on the spot, I believe is the best way forward, and it is how we can make our communities a safer and better places to be. At the start of my contribution to the debate, I would like to say something that I believe can achieve consensus right across the chamber. Please, Scotland, do a fantastic job of keeping us safe and fighting crime, and we owe them a huge debt of thanks. The Conservative motion today asks Parliament to support a higher level of fixed penalty notice for more serious anti-social behaviour. Like John Finnie and Liam McArthur, I am puzzled as to the detail of the motion or where the evidence is that a higher level of fixed penalty notice would reduce offending or re-offending. Liam Kerr's motion advocates doubling the on-the-spot fine from £50 to £100 for more serious offences that are not deemed serious enough to go to court. However, my questions are how and who defines how serious those offences are if they are not going to court. Is that jump judgment simply down to the police dealing with the incident, and if so, who would monitor that? Is this not another responsibility to impose on our hard-working officers? Of course, Presiding Officer, I agree that anti-social behaviour is distressing and causes chaos in daily lives and communities, the type of behaviour that ranges from neighbour's disputes to vandalism and everything in between, as Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson outlined. However, given that a large proportion of those crimes are caused by young people who may have lost their way or are facing adversity in deprived communities, they simply may not be in a position to pay £50 far less than £100, and I agree with Daniel Johnson on his comments on that. Having said that, the figures that are released today from the Howard League Scotland indicate that the number of young people who are becoming involved in the justice system is reducing, not just in Scotland but globally, which is very welcome news. Presiding Officer, I do believe early interventions, starting with education in school, is one way to reduce anti-social behaviour, as well as a change of culture, to encourage a culture of respect among adults, to stop and look at the selfish way that they are behaving which upsets people. If we attempt to find out why people, adults or children act out in this way, it may help us to reduce incidences of anti-social behaviour. Well-fixed. Very briefly, does Rona Mackay think that it is acceptable that SNP-run Glasgow Council's latest anti-social behaviour strategy is dated 2005 to 2008? I think that the figures have to speak for themselves. The initiatives that are outlined by the minister show that we are tackling the causes of anti-social behaviour. I am not sure that that is entirely relevant. Well-fixed penalty notices are important. They are just part of a wider range of powers and initiatives to tackle anti-social behaviour. I am pleased to say that, in my constituency in East Dunbartonshire, unlike Liam Kerr's, crime is down right across the board with reports of anti-social behaviour down 4 per cent from last year. I hope that this trend continues, and I commend the work that is done by our local officers. Presiding Officer, the 2018-19 draft Scottish budget increases funding for police services by around £25 million compared with previous years. Of course, that has helped by the change to the VAT status, meaning that we are not unfairly charged, but the back payment of £175 million would be a considerable boost to the budget. We will continue to put pressure on Westminster to return that to us. Budgets and stats are for politicians, and I recognise that people are more concerned about the reality of life in the streets. I agree that we should be doing everything that we can to reduce anti-social behaviour. I am just not convinced that this is the way to do it. We are on the correct trajectory when it comes to dealing with crime in Scotland. It can never be eradicated, but if we have a dedicated and professional force producing encouraging results, we are on the right track. Thank you very much. I call Clare Baker to be followed by Richard Lyle. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate. Anti-social behaviour is a blight on too many communities and causes significant disruption to people's lives. Today's debate is a welcome opportunity to consider how we tackle such behaviour in ways that are effective, proportionate and preventative. I want to raise a particular issue that illustrates the challenges that we face in addressing anti-social behaviour. In recent years, we have seen an increase in the popularity of off-road vehicles, such as quad bikes and scramblers, partly because it is easier and cheaper to buy them online and from overseas. I appreciate that riding quad bikes and dirt bikes is exciting, but those buying them must appreciate that there are restrictions. The DVLA is reserved, but consideration should be given to the need for these vehicles to be registered and insured with appropriate consequences, such as destruction or confiscation of the vehicle if there is a failure to comply. The influx of vehicles has coincided with a rise in irresponsible behaviour, and that cannot go unchallenged. We have seen in Fife, particularly around the Levenmouse and Cacodde areas, residents being put at risk in their own streets. There has been the death of a much-loved pet, dangerous riding in parks and woodland walks, which has put in the rider and citizens at risk, and thousands of pounds worth of damage to local farmland as riders trespass on private property. We cannot let such irresponsible anti-social behaviour continue. I have been campaigning for some time for clearer rules and regulations so that those who are using off-road bikes understand the risks they are taking and the laws that they are breaking. I have argued for investment into diversionary activity and for the police to have the full range of powers to enable them to tackle this problem. For many riders it is an ignorance of the law, but for others there is a criminality involved. Bike theft is a feature with at its height an average of one vehicle stolen every eight days in Fife. I have worked closely with the local police and I would like to highlight the work of Inspector Tom Brown and the team in Levenmouth who have worked hard alongside the local community to tackle such anti-social behaviour. 32 bikes have been seized in Levenmouth to date, and last year 21 people were charged with the illegal use of off-road bikes in the area. However, the police still face significant challenges. In a recent interview with the local paper, Inspector Brown made clear that such behaviour on quad bikes and similar vehicles are a threat to public safety before raising concerns that someone will be killed by the illegal use of motor bikes and legislation needs to be changed to reflect that. We cannot wait until there is a serious or even fatal accident in the area before we take necessary action. The current court system of issuing fines and points in a driving licence is a time-consuming and lengthy process, and it is not always relevant to the culprit. We should be looking to provide the police with more options, including enabling fixed penalty notices to be issued to the risers, which should be a more immediate police response to reflect on the crime. I raised the issue with the minister in the chamber just before Christmas, and I appreciate the productive meeting that we had together this morning. I am meeting with the police and other partners in Fife tomorrow, and I hope that, going forward, we are able to work together to tackle the issue. Ultimately, safety is of the Parliament concern—safe for the rider, but also safety for local residents. As both amendment and its highlight, fixed penalty notices and punishment can only be part of the solution. We must ensure that early intervention addresses the root causes and tackles the activity before it becomes criminal. That is why I would like to highlight the work of Kingdom Off-Road Motorcycle Club. Working in leave-and-mise, it provides diversionary programmes and offers a safe and professional environment for off-road track users. It works in the area as vital if we are to raise awareness of responsible riding and preventant social behaviour. It seeks support and funding to build an indoor track to ensure that riders have access all year round. They have had support from the local authority, from the police and from funding bodies such as the lottery to support their diversionary work, but that is always a challenge. To tackle antisocial behaviour, we must look at innovative solutions to the problems that we face, alongside considering changes to legislation, and that is why I will be supporting the Labour amendment this afternoon. I call Richard Lyle to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. If the Tories had thought that that was really important, they were allocated more time. I would like to begin by reflecting on the wider issue today, because fixed penalties for antisocial behaviour are a part of a wider gamut of powers and activity that our police service delivers in order to give our communities feeling and feeling safe. A priority that the SNP Government is utterly committed to in terms of supporting that work and building communities safely. Of course, that is a priority that we see time and time again being recognised as a re-reflect on our record, with one of the lowest crime levels since 1974, more police on the streets, not less like England. On reflecting on the call today, we must recognise that, whilst penalty notice are an important tool, no tool for tackling antisocial behaviour, they absolutely form part of a wider range of powers and initiatives. Police and local authorities already have that range of options. Available when tackling antisocial behaviour, and, importantly, they have the ability to exercise discretion and judgement when using those options. This Government, I know, supports work to reduce the damage caused by antisocial behaviour, tackling the symptoms, testing and prevention. For example, the cashback for communities in order to fund a wide range of projects facilities throughout Scottish communities, including those experiencing antisocial behaviour. Since 2008, the Scottish Government has committed £92 million for cashback for communities. That type of diversionary work and preventive spending is an effective tool in addressing some of the concerns that the Conservative members raise. That said, the Government has stated that there is on-going discussions with Police Scotland and local authorities to provide opportunity for them to explore options. However, we must be careful because there are unintended consequences of what appear to be a quick fix. For example, people committing low-level antisocial behaviour could be given fines that they cannot afford to pay and therefore get caught up in the justice system. We do not want that for people we represent. We need a proportionate and balanced approach. In my opinion, increasing fines is an easy fix. I am afraid to say that it is a usual conservative headline-grabbing approach because we have a Tory party who wants to reduce income tax but then increase fines. Short, sharp, shock, an old, little Tory saying, I wonder where I heard that before. Is this a new way of raising revenue? I would really be interested in hearing about the conservative, wider justice policy and they should have given more time to discuss it rather than this approach today or don't want to talk about it because it is not a simple issue. I served as a counciller on North Lash Council for decades. They only try to do as they have done to Mr Black for down in Westminster. It won't work with me. I was one of the first to have a dedicated anti-social task force department and I can tell the chamber justifying anti-social behaviour takes a lot of work and needs more investigation direct involvement by both council staff and police. Presiding Officer, the headline-grabbing motion, the Tories wanting to get tougher and introducing more fines to grab the right wing press be but a competent approach it does not make. As far as I am concerned, Presiding Officer, we on these benches will continue to have dialogue and ensure that we work with our partner agencies to have a comprehensive approach to tackle not only anti-social behaviour but crime across the board. I am very glad that I have upset the Tory party this afternoon. Thank you. I call on Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Shona Robison. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Anti-social behaviour, while it is often referred to as nuisance crime, can have severe and deep-seated adverse effects on individuals, families and local communities. It can take many forms ranging from vandalism, drunken behaviour to verbal abuse. This behaviour is intensified for council tenants and owner occupiers living in Thlats. As the following two examples from my case work demonstrate, the first consens an elderly lady who lived peacefully alone in her privately-owned flat. Then the flat below was rented to individuals who used common-year-old garden from morning to night to drink, smoke and swear. When my constituent complained neither the letting agent nor the landlord took any action, but from then on she was subjected to verbal abuse and intimidation to the extent she became reluctant to leave her flat. The police were called and were responsive but could only ask her to continue to monitor and report the incidents. Eventually, in consultation with her family, she had to put her flat up for sale, with all the stress, upheaval and expense that entails. My other example involves the constituent who had lived in her council flat for 20 years. Then a couple moved into the flat directly opposite her and from then on my constituent and other neighbours' lives became a living hell. Despite rules to the contrary, the couple kept 10 pets in the fourth floor flat. Their antisocial behaviour included shouting, abuse at residents, putting litter through their letterboxes and playing unacceptably loud music. Several years on, the abuse continues and my constituent is now suffering from depression which is affecting her employment. It is therefore very briefly, as we have only got a short time, yes. Please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that and I have every sympathy with the constituents, but I am just wondering how increasing fixed penalty notices would help with that and I am genuinely asking if you are learning to develop my argument, then I certainly will answer that. It is therefore deeply concerning across Scotland that there are a thousand incidents of antisocial behaviour recorded every day. In North Lanarkshire, incidents are up by 2 per cent and Scotland is wide up by 5 per cent. The Government rightly states in their amendment that measures to tackle antisocial behaviour need to include diversionally, early intervention and preventative activities and antisocial behaviour orders were introduced by the Liberal Labour Coalition as part of the 2004 Antisocial behaviour Act. That included provision for parenting orders as intervention to help prevent further incidents of youth antisocial behaviour. In 2009, the Scottish Government published its antisocial behaviour framework, but it is unclear what measures have been put in force as a result of that or whether parenting orders can still be used and to answer Eileen Smith directly. In any case, there needs to be a balance between early intervention, diversionally measures and deterrent. Here, there has to be a tougher deterrent to tackle the more serious and persistent instances of antisocial behaviour, especially against a bankground of, according to the police federation, police being run ragged and at breaking point frustrated, they cannot respond to incidents due to lack of resources. It is therefore for this reason that Scottish Conservatives are proposing an increase to antisocial behaviour, fixed penalties and notices that would double from £500 to £100 for the most serious antisocial behaviour crimes. I would therefore urge the Parliament to support the Conservative motion this evening. Thank you, Aircol. Shona Robison, before we move to concluding speeches. Shona Robison. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Antisocial behaviour is, of course, unacceptable. No one in Scotland should have to put up with abuse in any form, and the definitions of antisocial behaviour are wide-ranging and cover all manner of abusive behaviours. It can make people feel threatened, vulnerable, distressed, alarmed, harassed and more, and I know all too well from my constituency case the impact that that can have. And we're all agreed that there is a need to tackle antisocial behaviour and, of course, its causes to prevent members of the public from having to experience the fallout from antisocial behaviour. Now, of course, fixed penalty notices are one way in which Scotland can deal with antisocial behaviour. They're £50 on the spot fines for minor offences issued by Police Scotland form an important deterrent against offending and discourage repeat offences. And, of course, they're already raised to £75, if not paid within 28 days, and fines are also steeper for other offences. And those steeper penalties reflect the seriousness of those offences. To this end, the existing policy approach already adheres to the tiered system that Liam Kerr's motion appears to seek. But, but they're not the only way Scotland can tackle antisocial behaviour. For a start, those penalties are issued after an offence has taken place. That could certainly act as a deterrent, but to truly tackle antisocial behaviour, we need to tackle the root causes of it. And that's what the Scottish Government is doing. Cashback for communities, for example, is a good example of that approach. Re-investing money seized from criminals directly into community initiatives for young people in local communities across Scotland by targeting support in areas of deprivation and social exclusion with risks of becoming involved in antisocial behaviour from a young age being higher. That's supported with £92 million of Scottish Government support since 2008, and it's been able to deliver almost 2 million positive opportunities and activities for young people across Scotland in Dundee. That has meant over £2.5 million being spent on projects creating around 62,000 activities for young people in local communities, including sport, diversionary youth work, and creating initiatives in partnership with Creative Scotland. Yes, of course. Liam Kerr. I agree with a lot of what Shona Robison said in the general thrust, but off the top of my head, I think that there are still 43 incidents of antisocial behaviour every day in Dundee, so doesn't she at least agree that we should be trying something more like the two-tier system? Shona Robison. Well, I'm not sure, as many others have said, that there is an evidence base for that working. I think that where there is an evidence base is that those diversionary activities in tackling the causes of offending actually work. I think that we in this Parliament should follow the evidence. I don't think that there is a strong evidence base, but, of course, the fixed penalty notices, as I said at the beginning of my speech, are already part of the tools that can be deployed, but tackling the causes is absolutely key here. Research has shown, of course, that more adults feel safer. For example, they feel safer walking home after dark. The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey and the Scottish Household Survey shows us that the number of adults who believe antisocial behaviour is an issue in their area has dropped substantially. Fewer adults are seeing or experiencing vandalism or violence, and that is a good thing. That goes beyond simply issuing fixed penalty notices. That's not to say, as I've said already, that they don't play an important role in tackling crime. They, of course, do, but those other areas are absolutely critical. I think that the point has also been made by a number of members that, given the age of austerity that we live in, food bank use and rent arrears being up, the roll-out of universal credit and its impact, means that there are, for many in areas of deprivation and poverty and those on low incomes struggling to make ends meet. It could be very difficult for those who have committed an offence to pay a higher fine. On what we don't want, and I'm sure Liam Kerr would accept this, what we don't want is individuals becoming trapped in the justice system and unable to escape it where we can avoid that. So, of course, fixed penalty notices are issued on a discretionary basis by the police, and that is an important point to remember. And we would all agree that the police should have the powers that they need to do their job effectively and help protect the public. So, I think that, as many have said, this is a more complex issue beyond fixed penalty notices, and that's why it needs to be seen in the context of that in this debate. Thank you very much, and we move now to closing speeches that are called Daniel Johnson to conclude for Labour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been an interesting and useful debate, and I think that there's been both agreement and disagreement. So, let me start with what I think we all agree on. First of all, is that early intervention is important. It's important that we intervene on behaviours before they escalate to the point that they're criminal. Likewise, I think that we all recognise that the vast bulk of what the police actually do day to day probably isn't in the sphere of criminality. Therefore, giving them the tools they need to intervene is clearly important. The divergence is whether or not the simple proposal that we have brought forward by the Conservatives this evening is sufficient or evidenced. I don't think that it is evidenced, and that's why I have sought to amend this motion so that it's about considering this but within a much broader context of other measures that we should, because I don't think that we can support the unequivocally an increase. I think that there is a need to review these orders, and indeed perhaps a need to look at the level of fines but not without looking at evidence. That is where I think the first point of divergence occurs. Let me just highlight one point. I think that on various sides of the chamber through this afternoon, the numbers of these orders issued have been used as evidence of either success or failure, that the decline of the use of these orders as a sign of failure from the Conservatives, and indeed the very same numbers sign of evidence that crime is declining. I think that it's much more complicated than that. Yes, it could be a sign that they're not being used properly, but I can also suggest perhaps that it may also be a sign that the police simply don't have the time in order to deal with those issues because they're having to deal with other higher priority issues, but it is complicated, and I wouldn't like to say that definitively. What we do need is evidence. Likewise, I thought that we had some good contributions from another member about whether or not an increase really would improve a deterrence. As John Finnie pointed out, if you're talking about dealing with someone who's drunken disorderly, does a doubling the fine actually alter their behaviour at all? I'm not sure it does. And likewise, I thought that Richard Lyle put it very well, that if you double the fine and increase the chances of non-payment and thus bringing someone into the sphere of the courts and criminality, are we making the problem worse? And these are the things that I think we need to consider before you would want to say definitively, one way or another, whether you would want to bring forward a proposal like this. The second point of divergence is around the logic about how this works. And I think we do need to take care. I think, as Liam McArthur pointed out, we do need to question whether or not there's a need for more serious behaviours and whether or not actually just the police powers of escalation are sufficient. I think that that's an open question and one that would need to be probed. And likewise, again, just referring to John Finnie's comments, I think the very fact that these are summary and don't have any form of appeal or address. I think that these are useful orders, but they are summary and I think complex and we need to take care before we do. But finally, I would just like to point out the context. And I think that it is impossible to talk about these things without looking at the wider social context in which these behaviours and, indeed, criminality take place. Poverty is the biggest single factor and contributory factor to crime. Disadvantage and inequality are the things that we should be focusing on if we want to tackle crime. And I would say to both parties who represent Governments in this chamber to think very carefully about whether or not the decisions that their parties are making are helping or hindering tackling these wider issues, whether cuts in social security actually improve their ability in the social context. And likewise, the cuts in local services in this city over £40 million worth of cuts are being considered to local services. And I would just gently say to both parties think whether or not you are making it easier or harder to tackle crime in making those decisions. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I call on Ash Denham to wind up for the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. And I've listened to this afternoon's discussion with great interest and I'm pleased that there is so much commitment across the chamber to tackling antisocial behaviour, although there is some divergence as outlined by Daniel Johnson in the ways to do that. I, like others in the chamber this afternoon, am not entirely clear on what the Conservatives are suggesting. There was quite a lack of detail in their proposal put forward this afternoon. Liam Kerr's motion suggests that a higher level of fixed penalty notice for more serious antisocial behaviour, as he describes it, but many, if not all, acts that could be referred to as more serious antisocial behaviour are in fact already likely to attract criminal charges, which in those cases would be the appropriate police response. When considering whether there are benefits to change, we also need to make sure that the evidence supports it, as mentioned by a number of speakers this afternoon, and that there is a demand for such a change by those experts who work directly on these issues and that we consider the consequences both intended and unintended fully before we move forward. But let us be in no doubt we need to be taking a smart justice approach to resolving all of our social issues and it's wrong to believe that a welfare-based approach means that people are not being held to account for their actions. It actually means that interventions are designed to divert the individual from a path that could lead to a life of crime so that instead they can make a positive contribution to our country and also our future. Fixed penalty notices have a role to play here, of course, but let us first and foremost be clear that our aim is to apply the intervention which will have the best outcome for society as a whole. So statistics published yesterday on criminal proceedings in Scotland show a further decline in the use of antisocial behaviour fixed penalty notices and while operational policing is of course a matter for Police Scotland and prosecution policy is a matter for the Crown, those who work closely with Pre-Scotland to ensure effective approaches in enforcing justice are taken. Such a decrease indicates, may indicate that our justice partners are looking at other ways to deal with and tackle antisocial behaviour. And it's absolutely right that partners should look at the effectiveness of different approaches and adjust these when more effective interventions are identified. And we do not believe that a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is appropriate. Liam Kerr I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Minister, there were 41,500 incidents of antisocial behaviour in Edinburgh last year. That is 2,000 more than the previous year. Does the minister think that's acceptable? And if not, shouldn't we at least try a two-tier approach? Minister. Again, the lack of clarity on the conservative proposals mean that it's not something we could support at this point. I would also, I have some issue with the statistics that many across the conservative ventures are using this afternoon because I cannot see that in my own statistics. The long-term trend for antisocial behaviour is down. I know that the Conservatives and I hear the Conservatives are laughing. The Conservatives like to use data from police reports, police force reports, which did show a slight increase last year. But this report from the first quarter this year shows that reports are down again. So that's why it's important to look at the overall long-term trend which is down, which doesn't support what the Conservatives have been saying this afternoon. So Presiding Officer, we recognise that antisocial behaviour doesn't remain static, that delivery partners need to continuously assess the best approaches available to encourage perpetrators to change their behaviour and to secure further reductions in offending through smart justice responses. And again, I can assure the chamber that we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that police and local authorities have the power and resources to further reduce antisocial behaviour, which is why our approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is constantly kept under review. However, we remain confident that maintaining the focus on prevention and continuing to support delivery through partnership of the antisocial behaviour framework and the many other initiatives that are being taken forward by our partners in communities across Scotland will provide the best chance of improvement for the quality of life for everybody in all of our communities. And let's not forget that all available evidence shows a long-term reduction in violent crime in Scotland, reconviction rates that are at their lowest level in the last 19 years and recorded crime in Scotland is at the second lowest level since 1974. And these achievements are the result of taking a smart justice approach. An approach that is based on evidence, it's based on partnership working, recognising that one size does not fit all and that delivering positive outcomes for communities and society as a whole is what will deliver the Scotland that we all want to see. Thank you very much. And I call on Michelle Ballantyn Michelle Ballantyn. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My colleague Liam Kerr brought his motion before this chamber today for one simple reason. Antisocial behaviour is rising and is not a victimless crime. Every day across Scotland people of all ages are experiencing irritation, frustration and in some cases fear because individuals feel free to impose their socially unacceptable behaviours on others with impunity. Margaret Mitchell gave two examples of how antisocial behaviour can destroy lives. And following that, Liam McArthur and Rona Mackay all said they did not understand the motion or why it had been bought and the suggestion appeared to be that there isn't really any issue to tackle. Then straight afterwards we heard from Claire Baker who described the impact of the misuse of off-road bikes and it seems to me that a more significant fixed penalty notice would be perfect in that case. Liam Kerr has eloquently laid out the need for on-the-spot fines for certain categories of antisocial behaviour. And our motion today is a simple proposition that the single, not right now, that the single fine is too blunt an instrument to tackle such a complex issue. It doesn't allow the police to differentiate between low-level antisocial behaviour and a more serious incident that doesn't require then using court intervention. And we have heard that in other nations in the UK there is a two-tier system which gives officers greater discretion to deal with offenders and this has attracted interest from Police Scotland. Now there seems to be in all the discussion here and there's a hell of a lot discussion going on right now that actually somehow that antisocial behaviour is always around offenders who need great intervention. Quite often its individuals on a drunken night out it is people hanging around in town that aren't set down on a life of crime but their behaviour on that night causes significant concerns to the communities in which they live or the other people around them. And actually the whole point about fixed penalty notices is that it sends them a clear message on that day without any subsequent consequences that they should not behave like that. Minister Ash Denham I would just like the member to explain in clear details that the whole chamber can understand if she can lay out the evidence why increasing the penalty would make any difference in the way that she's suggesting to the level of antisocial behaviour. And if the chamber would listen that would also be helpful Michelle Ballantyne. Yes, wouldn't it just? Okay, Police Scotland statistics. You probably don't have these in front of you from what you said earlier. 343,570 incidents for antisocial behaviour in the last year. That's 940 incidents a day. So can we really argue that there needs no action whatsoever? And according to the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 63% of all crimes in Scotland go unreported. So if that is correct and I'm sorry if you don't have that figure in front of you then what we are seeing in the official figures for antisocial behaviour is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Presiding Officer of course it's important to remember that antisocial behaviour is closely linked to other factors in our communities. And Daniel Donson talked a lot about that in his contribution. As indeed did the minister in her open remarks and she talked about the benefit of early intervention. Well I can tell the minister that I was one of the original members of the early and effective intervention team in my local area. So I have no problem supporting what the government has done around that. It does work and it is a super process for taking people who are on the edge of early crime into a system that will prevent them going down the crime route. That is not what this motion is about. This motion is about those one-off antisocial behaviours where people need to understand that it is not acceptable. Now I suspect I'm going to run out of time the way things are going because this has all dragged on somewhat. I think that really in summing up of this I understand that across the chamber people are arguing that they're a wee bit confused they don't really understand this. So can we bring it back to a point of clarity? We do have an antisocial antisocial behaviour problem in Scotland. In fact most countries do. This is about whether we can tackle it effectively. The government have brought forward some good policies and I support those policies as does the rest of my benches. This is not a criticism of what you have done to date. This is about how the police on the ground can tackle incidences of antisocial behaviour without dragging them into the court system without making them part of an early and effective intervention system. This is about sending a clear message to those off-road bikers. You do not come here again you do not do this again and actually the current level of fine is worth it to get your off-road bike out for the day and some people will happily pay that. A higher level of fine will make them weigh that up and say do I really want to pay that amount for coming out on my bike? That is the point of this motion. We are asking the government to support raising or having a higher level of fine that is appropriate for antisocial behaviour. It is a simple ask if the answer is no what you are really saying I think is you recognise the problem but you are not willing to take the action. So we will support the Labour amendment today I support a lot of what you have said around the wider issues and it has been mentioned by the others but we would hope that the government would consider this not just reject it out of hand by talking about their other actions that they have taken. Thank you very much and that concludes our debate on tackling antisocial behaviour. The next item is consideration of business motion 15623 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau setting out a business programme. Could I call on Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much and no one has asked to speak against the motion therefore the question is that motion 15623 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 15621 also in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on the stage one timetable for a bill. Could I call on Graham Day to move that motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much and no one has asked to speak against that motion therefore the question is that motion 15621 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are. Thank you very much. The next item is consideration of Bureau motion 15622 on approval of an SSI and again could I ask Graham Day to move this motion on behalf of the Bureau? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I have become to decision time The first question today is that amendment 15607.2 in the name of John Swinney who seeks to amend motion 15607 in the name of Liz Smith on the presumption to mainstream be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 15607.1 in the name of Ian Gray who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Liz Smith be agreed. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division on that motion and amendment and members be cast a vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 15607.1 in the name of Ian Gray is yes, 27, no, 92. There are no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 15607 in the name of Liz Smith has amended on the presumption to mainstream be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now on the fourth question I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Ash Denham is agreed then the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson will fall. The question is that amendment 15615.2 in the name of Ash Denham who seeks to amend motion 15615 in the name of Liam Kerr on tackling antisocial behaviour be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members be cast a vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 15615.2 in the name of Ash Denham is yes, 69, no, 50. There were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson therefore falls. And the next question is that motion 15615 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended on tackling antisocial behaviour be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. And the final question is that motion 15622 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now we are going to that concludes decision time. I'm going to move to members' business in the name of Gail Ross on equally safe at work. But we'll just take a few moments for members and the minister to change things.