Fire and Rescue Framework Debate 10th September 2009 video

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): I concur with the minister's remarks in respect of the late Ewan Williamson, and on behalf of my party I send our condolences to his family during this difficult time.

The Scottish Labour Party welcomes the debate and the opportunity to recognise the crucial role that fire and rescue services play in our communities. I can think of many examples in my constituency of the integration of the fire service into the local community—I am sure that members can think of examples in their areas. I was delighted to attend the Springburn fire station open day a couple of weeks ago, and I commend the service for giving the community access to its local fire station and for providing the all-important home safety advice to which the minister referred

ABDELBASET ALI MOHMED AL-MEGRAHI (DECISION) - 2 September 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): I recall watching, as a young man, the events of Lockerbie unfold on 21 December 1988. Like many others in the chamber, I felt genuinely touched by the grief displayed by so many families who were so cruelly affected by the Lockerbie bombing. However, I also remember the dignity that was shown by the victims' families and by those from the Lockerbie community, despite the tragic loss of their loved ones. I also recall the feeling of disbelief at the magnitude of the crime. Many people posed the question why such a peace-loving country

CONVENTION RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT) () BILL: STAGE 1 - 18 June 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): The debate has shown us that members are united in one respect: in an ideal world, we would not want prisoners to benefit from compensation payments. As far as I am concerned, prison should be seen as punishment, not as an opportunity for compensation payments. As Richard Baker said—other members have referred to this—the issue is complex, and we have faced it for many years. Legal minds have been challenged on the rights and wrongs of the issue but, as others have said, we are now required to face up to the Somerville judgment in such a way as to bring us into line with the rest of the .

Like Richard Baker, I am pleased that we can now introduce the one-year time bar, following constructive dialogue between our Westminster colleagues and the Scottish Government. On Angela Constance's point, according to all the reports from ministers, that dialogue has been helpful and has allowed us to take matters forward.

SEXUAL OFFENCES () BILL - 10 June 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): I think that many other members of the Justice Committee would agree that we have successfully interrogated a number of the challenges that we faced during the progress of this bill. It is important to put on record our appreciation of the clerks who have provided us with support during the process, and our appreciation of the Scottish Parliament information centre, which provided information to Robert Brown that allowed him to further his interrogation of issues that we discussed earlier.

OFFENCES (AGGRAVATION BY PREJUDICE) () BILL - 3 June 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Patrick Harvie and I have disagreed with each other on many issues in the chamber, from identity cards and DNA retention to ways of tackling antisocial behaviour. However, I am delighted to say that, on this occasion, we whole-heartedly agree with each other. I commend Patrick Harvie and the organisations that have ably supported him during the passage of the bill and have provided us with useful information, such as the Equality Network and Stonewall, for the work that they have done.

There have been a number of thoughtful and powerful speeches in the debate, and it is clear that there is cross-party support for the bill at stage 3. I will touch on a number of the themes that have been raised today and at stages 1 and 2.

As John Lamont mentioned, the common-law system

CASHBACK FOR COMMUNITIES - 28 May 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): It is always welcome to get the last penny out of the drug baron's pocket, and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides an opportunity to do that. Working with the UK Government, we delivered an effective piece of legislation. Without the 2002 act, we would not be debating the cashback for communities scheme in the first place.

 The prosecution of criminals has always taken priority and it will continue to do so. However, it has always been unacceptable that the ownership of the proceeds of crime remained immune from legal challenge where criminal proceedings were not available. The 2002 act gives the police the power to seize the cash

MISSING CHILDREN ALERT SYSTEM - 28 May 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): On behalf of Scottish Labour, I commend the Scottish Liberal Democrats for securing the debate. There is no doubt that the Amber alert system has great merit and would make a difference to the protection of children from people who pose a threat to community safety.

 A great achievement of the Parliament is that we can show unity when we give priority to children's safety. We have done that on a number of occasions. I experienced such unity when the sub-committee of the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament considered the management of registered sex offenders. The need

COMMUNITY COURTS - 7 May 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): We have consistently argued, during many justice debates, that offenders must be dealt with robustly. We have also stressed the need for communities to have confidence in the justice system and for rehabilitation opportunities to be provided to offenders. As many members have suggested, the community courts model provides a structure for those opportunities to be delivered, but it is clear from the speeches of the apologists on the SNP benches that the SNP is out of touch with the reality that our communities face. Our communities want to see justice done, yet the SNP is the only main party in the Parliament that does not adequately support community courts.

It is not only the main political parties that support community courts; the Lord Advocate

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR FRAMEWORK - 2 April 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Our amendment makes it clear that although we note the framework—particularly its references to projects that were delivered in the Labour years, which we recognise—we must express our dismay that, after 18 months of review, the Government has provided little vision or leadership on how best to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities throughout Scotland.

 Of course we want to prevent antisocial behaviour. That is why, when we were in government, we did not just talk a good game; we put money on the table for local authorities to spend on projects. That is why youthbuild and the clean Glasgow campaign were introduced, and that is why twilight basketball was introduced in the Labour years.

POLICE NUMBERS - 19 March 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Given that the Government so enjoys subject debates and Government debates that, on many occasions, are to discuss absolutely nothing, it is a pity that we have had to use our Opposition time to extract from the Government its so-called commitment to delivering 17,265 officers, as promised in its manifesto. We will not allow the Government to hide behind the police force projection study and will hold it to account on its commitment to delivering the 1,000 police officers.

For so long, the Government has sought to condition our thinking on this issue. Perhaps we were mistaken. As Robert Brown said, perhaps the manifesto commitment was to deliver the equivalent of 1,000 more police officers. Perhaps the commitment was to set up a fund that would allow police authorities to bid for money to put police officers on our streets.

OFFENCES (AGGRAVATION BY PREJUDICE) () BILL: STAGE 1 - 18 March 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on the progress that he has made so far on the bill. Members who are progressing a member's bill, or who have completed that process, appreciate the hard work and commitment that are required to progress a bill through the Parliament.

 At decision time, Labour members will support the motion in Patrick Harvie's name,

 "That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) () Bill."

 Most of those who gave evidence to the Justice Committee were genuinely supportive of the aims of the bill and were clear on its provisions and

DAMAGES (ASBESTOS-RELATED CONDITIONS) () BILL - 11 March 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): We have heard powerful speeches, particularly from members who support the bill.

The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, carefully considered a wide range of issues during the passage of the bill. During the process I learned a great deal about asbestos and its history. For example, I learned that asbestos has been known to be a poisonous substance since 1892. I heard from people who had worked with asbestos about employers' unacceptable practices. The negligence of employers is an important aspect of the debate, as the minister made clear.

Government Record Debate - 5th March 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Many of the 1.2 million people who voted SNP during the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections marked their crosses on the ballot paper in the belief that the SNP Government would deliver 1,000 more police officers in addition to the 16,265 it inherited from the previous Government, but it is becoming clear that the SNP Government will fail to deliver on its promise.Michael Russell: Will the member take an intervention?Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): Will the member take an interventionconvinced by the members whom Paul Martin cited as evidence of that—does he accept that the projection study that the cabinet secretary mentioned today will give us the answer once and for all? I am sure that the member will be glad that we will all know the answer.Paul Martin: I will not take lectures from Mike Russell on fairness.Today's debate gives the SNP Government the opportunity to say that it is sorry to the Scottish people for its broken promises, including the failure to deliver an increase in the number of police officers to 17,265 by 2011

Community Policing Debate- 26th February 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): In any debate on policing, it is important at the outset to acknowledge the important role that police officers play in ensuring community safety in all our communities. We learned in the Justice Committee inquiry that police officers show a great deal of commitment, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. It is important to put that on the record. It has been recognised that the inquiry was a useful opportunity to highlight constructively how we can improve local delivery of policing resources. I will refer to several key issues that the committee raised. The committee recommended that community police officers should be in post for at least two years. It is fair to say that the lack of continuity of community police officers causes great concern in many communities throughout . In my experience as more

Community Policing Debate - 26th February 2009

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): In any debate on policing, it is important at the outset to acknowledge the important role that police officers play in ensuring community safety in all our communities. We learned in the Justice Committee inquiry that police officers show a great deal of commitment, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. It is important to put that on the record. It has been recognised that the inquiry was a useful opportunity to highlight constructively how we can improve local delivery of policing resources. I will refer to several key issues that the committee raised. The committee recommended that community police officers should be in post for at least two years. It is fair to say that the lack of continuity of community police officers causes great concern in many communities throughout . In my experience as an elected representative for more than 15 years, the issue is one of the top five complaints that I receive from constituents. Communities realise that local police officers should be given the opportunity to build relationships in communities and that such relationships are impossible if there is a high turnover of officers. Although we all accept that such decisions are for chief constables, it would be wrong of chief constables or the Scottish Government to ignore the legitimate concerns that communities throughout have raised.Margo MacDonald (Lothians) ( Ind ): Has Paul Martin checked on what the police feel about the issue? What does the Scottish Police Federation say?

Paul Martin: Anecdotal evidence that I hope all members have received indicates that police officers want continuity and that they understand the importance of stable relationships with communities. Officers being in post for at least two years would be a step in the right direction. The Justice Committee heard consistent evidence that a stable and continuing relationship is important. As the report states, many people accept that the high turnover of community police officers results in poor knowledge and a poor service to the public.

The Justice Committee discussed abstraction of police officers from our communities and the need for a policy to dictate a presumption against that. Although many chief constables, including Stephen House of Strathclyde Police, have said that they want to take steps to minimise abstraction of community police officers, doing so can sometimes be difficult, given competing demands for officers. I recently observed the policing operations during a Rangers and Celtic game at Ibrox football ground, at which it was clear that many of the 500 police officers had been abstracted from communities throughout the west of . Although we should accept that such events require police resources, it is important to accept that football clubs, for example, should be required to compensate police authorities properly for the time that police officers spend at events such as football games. Although the committee report does not go into detail on that issue, it is worth raising.

There can be no doubt that sharing good practice among police forces is the way forward. We heard about many examples of good practice in police forces. However, it is important to put on record that there was virtually no evidence on how good practice is shared among the forces. I would welcome a brief intervention from the cabinet secretary to assure us that good practice is being shared among police forces.

Kenny MacAskill: We have an inspectorate of constabulary to do just that, and which was established long before my tenure in office. The purpose of the inspectorate is to ensure that we have the opportunity for review and that go

practice is shared. That said, it is not simply a case of our forcing matters; the police should also be learning. I believe that that carrot-and-stick approach is working.

Paul Martin: We have learned during the inquiry that what is displayed in flowcharts and presentations does not necessarily work in practice locally. Although there is sometimes a tendency for police boards to be parochial, that is not exclusive to police boards and happens throughout civic life in . We have to ensure that we in Parliament show leadership to ensure that good practice is shared, so I welcome the minister's constructive intervention in that regard.

The committee recognised that there is scope for further research into where good practice can be shared, and also for taking more evidence on the effectiveness of the various policing models that are being developed throughout . We accept that one size does not fit all, and that there are examples of good practice that more effective independent research might develop.

The Government gave a commitment to deliver 1,000 more police officers than the 16,236 officers that it inherited in May 2007. We on the Labour benches will ensure that it is held to account on that promise. It is important to recognise that if our policing models are to be successful, the Government should be held to account on its commitment.

Government Record Debate - 5th March 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Many of the 1.2 million people who voted SNP during the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections marked their crosses on the ballot paper in the belief that the SNP Government would deliver 1,000 more police officers in addition to the 16,265 it inherited from the previous Government, but it is becoming clear that the SNP Government will fail to deliver on its promise.Michael Russell: Will the member take an intervention?Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): Will the member take an intervention?Paul Martin: I will give way in a moment.Let us be fair in this respect. Many of us on the Labour seats are fair and reasonable individuals—Margaret Curran, Johann Lamont and Hugh Henry, among others. We can be reasonable, and we accept that the Government faces many challenges in delivering its manifesto commitments. The SNP Government has created a niche market in blaming the Opposition when the going gets tough. Let us be clear—we do not oppose the Government's plan to deliver 1,000 more police officers than it inherited, but what we need from the Government is for it to show humility, and not the projection study that Nicola Sturgeon mentioned.Michael Russell: In the spirit of fairness—although I would not be entirely convinced by the members whom Paul Martin cited as evidence of that—does he accept that the projection study that the cabinet secretary mentioned today will give us the answer once and for all? I am sure that the member will be glad that we will all know the answer.Paul Martin: I will not take lectures from Mike Russell on fairness.Today's debate gives the SNP Government the opportunity to say that it is sorry to the Scottish people for its broken promises, including the failure to deliver an increase in the number of police officers to 17,265 by 2011.

I sense that some SNP members are perplexed by my comments, but they have this opportunity to rebut what I have said. I see that both Kenny Gibson, who is an ambitious back bencher, and Nigel Don, who is a veteran member of the Justice Committee, are in the chamber. They have this opportunity to rebut my comments by confirming that the Government will have 17,265 police officers in place as per the SNP's manifesto commitment. I will welcome a rebuttal from Kenny Gibson on that point.Kenneth Gibson: We said that we would deliver 1,000 extra police officers by the end of the parliamentary session and I expect us to do that. We have delivered 441 additional officers in less than two years, so there is no reason why we cannot reach 1,000. I am sure that the projection will show that we are on course to do that.

Paul Martin: I welcome that point from the ambitious back bencher, Kenny Gibson. I wonder what that commitment will do to his career. We can watch with interest.SNP members also have the opportunity to correct me if I am wrong in saying that, of the 441 police officers to whom Kenny Gibson referred, 197 were recruited by money that was provided by local authorities. In press reports earlier this week, rather than express his thanks to local authorities for making sacrifices in their budgets to bail him out, Mr MacAskill sought to put the SNP's spin on the very little progress that has been made and on the budgetary commitments that the Government has failed to make. As I have said on many previous occasions, it is unacceptable that the SNP Government should claim that its interventions have made a difference to police numbers. I have a restricted document with me today that confirms that, despite the SNP Government's conditioning of the public message, the SNP's interventions have not made a difference on police numbers. The document shows that many of our police authorities intended to review their recruitment levels regardless of the Government's intervention.

On previous occasions, many members have asked why the Labour Party did not promise to deliver 1,000 extra police officers, so I remind them that making the promise is easy, but delivering on the promise is the challenge. The people will judge the Government not on the promises that it made but on the broken promises on which it has not delivered. I remind Tricia Marwick that, although that might be what the SNP Government stands for, that is not what the Labour Party stands for. We stand for honesty and for giving the people of manifesto commitments on which we will deliver.

On tackling alcohol abuse, there can be no doubt that the Scottish Government—through the offices of Kenny MacAskill—has grabbed many of the headlines. One of those has been that the polluter should pay. In August 2007, Mr MacAskill said"The effects of alcohol on our city and town centres is not cost free and those who profit from it must contribute to addressing it. It's not right that taxpayers pick up the whole of the bill, licensees should pay their way too."Such a "get tough" message on alcohol abuse from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has received support on previous occasions from those of us on the Labour benches. During the passage of the Licensing () Act 2005, I lodged an amendment that would have allowed us to ensure that the polluter pays, but my amendment was opposed by Fergus Ewing and Bruce Crawford. Because of their opposition, we were unable to introduce that polluter-pays principle. Mike Rumbles—whom I see on the other side of the chamber—will recall that amendment. The polluter-pays principle is not accepted by all members of the Scottish Government, which is divided on the issue. I remind the Government that opposition to the polluter-pays principle came not from the Labour benches but from the SNP benches.In conclusion, I call on the Parliament to support the motion in the name of Johann Lamont.

DAMAGES (ASBESTOS-RELATED CONDITIONS) () BILL - 11 March 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): We have heard powerful speeches, particularly from members who support the bill.

The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, carefully considered a wide range of issues during the passage of the bill. During the process I learned a great deal about asbestos and its history. For example, I learned that asbestos has been known to be a poisonous substance since 1892. I heard from people who had worked with asbestos about employers' unacceptable practices. The negligence of employers is an important aspect of the debate, as the minister made clear.

During the committee's consideration I listened carefully to the case that the insurance industry made. First, the industry said that it was concerned that premiums could increase; then it said that they would increase; then it was not quite sure. The industry provided the committee with little evidence to back up its views.

I listened with interest to Derek Brownlee's comments on amendment 9. Derek Brownlee says that he is concerned about post-legislative scrutiny, but he has not remained in the chamber for the debate. He wants the Scottish Government to make a commitment to seeing things through, but he has shown little commitment to doing that himself. I am pleased that the Parliament rejected amendment 9, which was ill thought out. I am disappointed that Mr Brownlee's party singled out the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) () Bill for special treatment.

John Lamont talked about uncertainty. I do not want to lecture members, but all members—especially those who have been in the Parliament since 1999—know that the Parliament faces challenges to do with uncertainty almost daily.

The Parliament has faced challenges with regard to other bills. I remember a similar debate about the Smoking, Health and Social Care () Bill, when businesses raised concerns about the potential impact that the ban would have on them. I also remember such a debate regarding the Licensing () Bill in 2005. This is not the first time that the Parliament has faced challenges regarding the impact that legislation will have on businesses. Nigel Don eloquently crystallised many of the issues, which were worth raising.

Having listened to the debates on the matter, I am clear that the bill should be passed with no ifs, buts or maybes. The hard-working men and women who were negligently exposed to asbestos have had enough of the insurance industry's attempts to evade its responsibilities. It is time for the Parliament to put that wrong right. The Parliament should be proud of the stance that it has taken on behalf of the many hard-working men and women throughout who were negligently—I make that point again—exposed to asbestos.

As others who have spoken in the debate did, I pay tribute to the trade unions, such as Unite, that played a role alongside Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the other groups that raised issues on behalf of those who have been affected by asbestos. I note the important role that Frank Maguire played on behalf of Thompsons Solicitors. It was evident to me during the committee's consideration of the bill that the insurance industry was well represented and spared no expense in legal matters. I am delighted that the hard-working men and women were given the same opportunity for legal representation by Thompsons Solicitors. The process highlighted the important role that the unions play in ensuring that our workers are fairly treated and given legal representation in the workplace.

 The bill deals with an industrial legacy in that needs to be put right. It is important that we grasp the opportunity to put that shameful legacy behind us. I call on the Parliament to support the passing of the bill.

OFFENCES (AGGRAVATION BY PREJUDICE) () BILL: STAGE 1 - 18 March 2009

 

Paul Martin ( Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on the progress that he has made so far on the bill. Members who are progressing a member's bill, or who have completed that process, appreciate the hard work and commitment that are required to progress a bill through the Parliament.

 At decision time, Labour members will support the motion in Patrick Harvie's name,

 "That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) () Bill."

 Most of those who gave evidence to the Justice Committee were genuinely supportive of the aims of the bill and were clear on its provisions and what it would achieve. I will highlight some of the issues that were raised in the stage 1 process. The committee recognised that the common-law system allows courts to take account of aggravating factors in determining sentences. However, a number of witnesses told us that the common law cannot send a clear message that such hate crimes are unacceptable in . The general feeling was that having a statutory aggravation will address the motivation behind such crimes.

 On balance, Labour members are content that the statutory aggravations should be created. We need to ensure that we take every possible step to send out a clear message to those who commit crimes of hatred because of an individual's presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.  

The bill contains no provision for mandatory sentences. Many witnesses made the case that an appropriate response was the way forward and that the judiciary should have discretion in sentencing. Although I accept the right of the judiciary to have discretion in sentencing, I believe that we need to monitor carefully the effectiveness of sentencing policy in dealing with those who commit hate crimes. The Parliament needs to acknowledge the unacceptable fact that some individuals react only to the possibility of a prison sentence. Patrick Harvie has to take that into consideration and he may want to address it in his closing speech.

Although the community sentencing disposals to which Tim Hopkins referred in his evidence can be considered as a serious alternative to prison, I am not convinced that they are always appropriate sentencing options for the perpetrators of the crimes that were described to the committee.

The bill requires that, in recording a conviction that contains an aggravation relating to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, the court must do so in a manner that shows that the offence was motivated by prejudice on one of those grounds. The step is to be welcomed, but I would have expected such information to be recorded at present, although we heard evidence about the difficulties of recording such crimes. On a positive note, Superintendent David Stewart told the committee that recording these statutory aggravations will give police forces baseline figures to work from and allow them to target resources. That is a positive step in the right direction.

There can be no doubt that training plays a crucial role in raising awareness of legislation. As we have heard on many occasions in the chamber, it is important for new legislation to be implemented consistently and robustly. In this case, additional resources may be required. I would welcome a commitment from the minister in his closing speech that resources will be provided to the relevant agencies.

There is no point in passing the bill if crimes are not reported, so we must ensure that victims are given respect and proper consideration. In its written submission, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People Scotland stated:

 "deaf and hard of hearing people are even less likely to report crimes against them because some find it difficult to access police services. For example, police stations may struggle to find interpreters at short notice when deaf people who use BSL as a first language want to report a crime. As a young deaf man who tried to report a crime at his local police station recalls: 'I had to wait for an interpreter at the police station from 4.30pm to 10pm and in the end, I was tired.'"

 If people are to be convinced that they should report crimes and that they will be taken seriously, we must ensure that an action plan is in place to deal with such experiences.

I call on the Parliament to support the motion.

POLICE NUMBERS - 19 March 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Given that the Government so enjoys subject debates and Government debates that, on many occasions, are to discuss absolutely nothing, it is a pity that we have had to use our Opposition time to extract from the Government its so-called commitment to delivering 17,265 officers, as promised in its manifesto. We will not allow the Government to hide behind the police force projection study and will hold it to account on its commitment to delivering the 1,000 police officers.

For so long, the Government has sought to condition our thinking on this issue. Perhaps we were mistaken. As Robert Brown said, perhaps the manifesto commitment was to deliver the equivalent of 1,000 more police officers. Perhaps the commitment was to set up a fund that would allow police authorities to bid for money to put police officers on our streets.

It is time for the Government to be open and accountable. When Alex Salmond was elected as First Minister on 16 May 2007, he said that this is

"a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 24.]

 This is an opportunity for the Government to deliver the principles behind those fine words.

I find it unacceptable that I had to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, following the Government's rejection of my request under the Freedom of Information () Act 2002 for information on how it would deliver its police recruitment figures. I am delighted that the commissioner has upheld my request and I look forward to receiving the information by 23 March.

As I said in a recent debate, Labour members are reasonable and fair individuals. We simply want to be given the opportunity to scrutinise a minority Government. That is why I support Richard Baker's call for an independent report. That would give the Parliament an opportunity to appraise properly many of the challenges that face Government on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps the Justice Committee could assist the Government in the process.

That would also give the Parliament an opportunity to highlight the support that Labour councils throughout have given the Government on recruitment. My council—Glasgow City Council—has contributed to the recruitment of more than 200 police officers and yet we have heard not one reference from a Government minister on the subject. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might like to intervene. I am happy to let him credit Glasgow City Council for its contribution.

Let me be clear that we will not take lectures from members opposite on police numbers. We not only provided additional officers when we were in government but gave them the legal remedies to do their job of attacking antisocial behaviour through the delivery of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. That act was widely acclaimed by police forces throughout which said that it provided them with the toolkit that they required to fight crime.

Now that this Government is in power, it is making clear its intention to dismantle all the remedies that are available to our officers. New recruits have the thankless task of being governed by the hug-a-hoodie alliance of the SNP and the Tories. We will not support the Tory amendment. Its content reeks of this sad alliance's desperation for attention. It reminds me of a saying of the great Abraham Lincoln:

"I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down."

 We are delighted to have extracted key information from the Government on its manifesto, but we have yet to extract one bit of information. I ask the cabinet secretary again to say the magic words that he will deliver 17,265 police officers. That is a pledge that we will hold him to.

I call on members to support the motion in Richard Baker's name and the amendment in Robert Brown's name.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR FRAMEWORK - 2 April 2009

 

Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab): Our amendment makes it clear that although we note the framework—particularly its references to projects that were delivered in the Labour years, which we recognise—we must express our dismay that, after 18 months of review, the Government has provided little vision or leadership on how best to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities throughout Scotland.

 Of course we want to prevent antisocial behaviour. That is why, when we were in government, we did not just talk a good game; we put money on the table for local authorities to spend on projects. That is why youthbuild and the clean Glasgow campaign were introduced, and that is why twilight basketball was introduced in the Labour years. Twilight basketball is an excellent project that has operated in my constituency and in other constituencies throughout . During the Labour years, we did not hide behind the so-called historic concordat—we took a direct interest in ensuring that diversionary activities were in place.

What is invisible in the document is any reference to the fact that sometimes we must use legal remedies to give our communities respite from the individuals who blight them. We should make no excuses for taking such actions. It is all very well for members, from the comfort of the chamber, to talk a good game about prevention, integration and all the other buzz words that appear in the document, and to launch nice, glossy documents with carefully orchestrated photographs.

People who live in communities such as Blackhill that are blighted by antisocial behaviour do not benefit from that comfort zone and look to their local politicians to be on their side. Perhaps Mr Thompson would like to respond to that point. 

We want our communities to be safer and stronger and to feel confident and reassured that, when they report antisocial behaviour, we will follow through on their concerns in a concise and concentrated manner by taking action, where appropriate. We also want to give local communities the power to take action. That is why today we propose that they should be able to apply directly for antisocial behaviour orders. Our communities are best placed to stand up to the antisocial behaviour that they encounter, so they should be empowered to do so.

 We call on the Government to consider the proposal that constituted community