 Felly, wrth gilwbio gyd, wrth gylwbio i'rcuritau ddysgu��ol. Maes ddweud i'r tuff Duchyleraidd yn gwneud ar gyfer 2017. Restrwn y ddau o'r yefyd. Y Caller Agenedd 1 er bys yn gyffredinol, ac mae'r ddweud yn gyffredinol l wych i ddweud o gyffredinol i ddysguidol peth i'r cysylltuio o'r draff 2018-19 mewn money model yn y prif. Ond, wrth gylwbio, mae'n gwneud ar gyfer 2018-19 a'n ddysguidol eu ddweud i ddweud. Mae gou. Y Cymru. Two is our third day of taking evidence on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communication Ru coule Scotland bill, and I refer members to paper one which is not by the clerk, and paper two is a spice paper. again welcome James Kelly, the member-in-charge of the bill to committee meeting and understand James you can only attend for the first ac mae Clare Bethel yn y ddyn nhw i ddim yn dweud o'r ddweud. Can I also welcome our first panel, Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic parliamentary office Catholic bishops conference Scotland, Reverend Ian Galloway, Church of Scotland and Society Council, Chris Oswald, head of policy, quality and human rights commission, you from Boroski, who has just joined us. We knew you had been held up, so very good you have made it for the beginning. You are from director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and Debbie Figures Development Assistant Scottish Women's Convention. Can I thank the panelist for all your submissions, written submissions, they have been extremely helpful to the committee. We will now move straight to questions and can I begin by asking the panel members, just in general terms, just how you feel about the report, the repeal, are you supportive or are you not supportive, do you have general concerns and anyone that would like to start? Mr Horan. I think that, first and foremost, if I could just set out that the Catholic Church would take the position that the decision on whether or not to repeal this act is something for Parliament, that is a decision for Parliament. When the act was first introduced in 2012, we certainly were supportive of the broad principle, which is to tackle offensive behaviour and everything that goes along with that. The Church could always condemn any behaviour that would foster hatred of any kind. In terms of the broad principle of the act, tackling offensive behaviour, we would support that. Underneath that, there are questions about the overall efficacy of the act and how it was introduced and brought into being. I am not sure whether you want me to tease those out just now or whether that will come out in the evidence, but I can give a broad brush of it. If you give us an area, we can... Perhaps it appears that, when the bill was introduced, it was fast-tracked somewhat, and it seemed to be rushed through. Given the proper scrutiny that, for example, the repeal bill is currently being given just now, there are also remain questions around whether or not it was actually necessary, because I know that the committee has received evidence or heard evidence that there was pre-existing legislation in common law that would have covered the offences that are cited in the act. That, in a broad sense, is the concerns that we would have. Thank you. Anyone want to go next? I think that, when the current act was being introduced, the Church of Scotland cautioned that it was important to see the impact of that piece of legislation in the context of a wider view of how we are dealing with issues around sectarianism in our society. It is to the Government's credit that, in those years since there has been considerable work being done on where we sit with those things. We recognise that sectarianism is still very much an issue, and it shows up in lots of different places, including at football. We cautioned, then, about the speed of the legislation, and we would caution now about the speed of repeal in the sense that we note that sectarianism can seem to be part of a weave of attitudes and behaviours that relate also to other issues that we have in our society around racist attitudes and behaviours, other religious attitudes and behaviours, including Islamophobia and so on. It seems to us that, given that there is a wider review of hate crime being undertaken, that it would be wise to see society's response to sectarianism in the context of that wider review. Particularly for young people who inherit our legislative decisions along with all the other decisions that we make, sectarianism does not sit on its own as a very separate thing from all those other attitudes and behaviours that they have to encounter and decide about and respond to themselves. I think that overall weave is where we would like to see this matter resolved. We think that it would be wise to not rush a question of repeal or amendment, but to wait for that outcome and then see where the bits of this legislation sit in relation to that. The other thing is that sometimes we can try to make a decision for one reason and send a message that is not the one that we are intending to send. We think that there is a danger of sending a message by the simple repeal of this legislation to people that we are not taking seriously enough the kinds of behaviours and attitudes that we find and that we are not taking seriously enough societies need to say that those are unacceptable and that we would want to know very clearly what are the alternatives before we remove one or two of the safeguards that are in place through this legislation. Largly, it is a question of timing and that wider review that we think in an overarching sense could include how we should respond to this particular issue. Yes, I very much agree with you and I think that until the wider review has been progressed and its findings have been put out for discussion and debate, I think that it would be unwise to proceed at this point with the repeal of the act. Whilst the discussions around the act predominantly are to do with sectarianism, we need to note that protections around for disabled people, for trans people would also be lost with no prospect of reintroduction at this point. The threatening religious communications aspect of the act would also be lost and again with no prospect of them being reintroduced at this point. Whilst the commission recognises that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are enormously important issues and protected by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, they need to be balanced against the international covenant on civil and political rights, which states that states need to protect or have laws in place which counter incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. It is the commission's position that the international convention overrides the ECHR in this case. I would also say that there are wider implications that this is not just about those people who want to gather out grounds and feel that their rights are being infringed by being unable to sing particular songs. I think that it is about the broader base of fans, those people who wish to attend football matches, but are put off from doing so because of the conduct of others. Hi. I just want to start off by describing our organisation. We are funded to consult with women across Scotland. We are not a lobbying organisation funded by the Government. We hold road shows and round table events, which can be very small and up to about 40-50 at time, women in a room, and we discuss what is happening in their local area, how they feel about things that are going on in their area, things that are going on in policy and anything else that they wish to discuss while they are there. We also hold thematic conference events, which do not tend to be around things that are happening locally. It tends to be around bills that are coming through in the Parliament. We have held a number of events from the top of Scotland down to the borders, and we also hold them in the islands as well. Women come along to our events to tell us what they feel and what their voices are. As a women's organisation, we welcome any moves, including this bill, if it offers protection for women where others do not. The bill offers some extra protection for women around the equality aspect of it. We have also had, and I have to mention over the weekend, a campaign by a group of women who I have wanted to get in touch with is, and I cannot ignore their voices because we are about women's voices. We have had 40 emails from women asking us to take back our evidence to this session, but we feel that all women's voices are very important, and women have come to our events and discussed this issue with us. That is what appears in our evidence to the committee. Women are protected by hate crime. It is not part of the hate crime legislation, and we feel that we will breach the peace for things such as rape threats and sexual harassment when football games are on, which is unacceptable. That is where we are coming from with our evidence to the committee. Thank you very much and again apologies for the state of the M8, but you are not the transport committee. I think that, in general, my position is almost identical with that of Ian Galloway. I would say that anybody who is old enough to remember the original race relations act will realise how much society has changed, that people do not say things now that they would have said in the 1960s, at least not in public. That is partly down to legislation, so I do not think that we can underestimate the effect that legislation has on attitudes. That is one marker. Therefore, I am predisposed towards anything that criminalises hate crime because it ultimately will feed into society's attitudes. I am therefore predisposed against repealing any anti-hate crime legislation for exactly the same reason. As Ian Galloway says, it can inadvertently send the wrong messages that somehow or other, some kind of hate crime or some kind of speech or some kind of action is now acceptable in society at large. I was very taken. I must say that I have not read all the submissions to this committee, but the ones that I have read were what one might call the representative ones. I would not go so far as to say that they were unanimous, but they were certainly nearly unanimous in their opposition to repeal, largely for those kinds of reasons. Therefore, if all what one might call the victim groups are saying that they feel to any extent protected by this legislation, that itself is a reason for holding on to it. The other thing is, again, as Ian Galloway said, the original legislation was criticised for being piecemeal and hurried. Here, we are talking about repealing it while there is a large-scale review of hate crime legislation going on at exactly this time. I would have thought that whatever the deficiencies in the legislation as it currently stands may be, and that is not something that I would pretend any expertise on, but if people tell us that there are deficiencies in it, we have to listen to them. However, we should be listening to them in the context of the Brachydale review and not hurriedly and in a piecemeal manner repealing the existing legislation. The other thing that I would add is simply in terms of slightly more detail, and again, as has been said by others, it is not only about football and it is not only about sectarianism and sectarianism is itself an iffy concept. It is not only about religious hatred. We should, in fact, be thinking in terms of a wider hate crime legislation—maybe in this form, maybe in a different form—but it should cover all hate crime in all contexts equally and not simply single out, which is one of the criticisms of the legislation of one particular group. On the submissions that have been received from a variety of organisations, I have not done account to see what a majority would look like, but there have been strong views on both sides of the arguments. It is fair to put that up front. The ones from the groups that are representative of the protected characteristics were notably against repeal—certainly the impression that I had. That is good to put that in context, absolutely. Rona Cymru. If you feel that the act has led to a change in behaviour at football matches, and if you feel that, then if you feel that it is for the better, has it led to your enjoyment of football matches more, if any of you attend football matches? I am happy to start on that one by telling you that the last time I attended a football match, I was aged about 13, so I simply cannot respond to that. I do not attend football matches at all, and I have no interest in football either. I was struck reading the Glasgow evening times last week that there was a report of fans being sought after a sectarian and homophobic chanting on a train between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I think that it was in advance of a match, so no, when it has not had the fully intended impact that it had, it is still a relatively new piece of legislation, I would say. As to whether or not it has changed behaviour at football grounds, I think that it is very hard to say. I think that there will be situations where people's behaviour may be constrained by knowledge of what the act is in force, but there will be situations where people simply do not care about those constraints. I am not quite sure how you could measure that, but, as has already been said, there is a very strong symbolic element to it that the Scottish state is saying that they do not believe that its behaviour is acceptable, and I think that that has been communicated quite successfully and will have had some impact on some fans. I have led a very sheltered life, but I have been to quite a lot of football matches. As a young person, I used to go all the time, and some of the most scary events of my life in terms of feeling under personal threat happened in those contexts, including being subjected to violence and abuse. I was privileged to be on the advisory group on tackling sectarianism that the Government set up. In the course of that work, I attended a number of football contexts in association with the police operations that were happening in order to be able to just get a sense of the issues that were involved and how they are working out. I would not say that anything had got worse than I remembered from before, but I would not be able to say with any confidence that things had got markedly better. When you go to an event where you find aggressive hostility being expressed between groups of people, and when you go to events at which there is deliberate physical damage being done to property, as a matter of course and what is a normal expectation, you have to say that things are not very good. That is not great. I know people who were experiencing those things for the first time and then became horrified that their children attended those kinds of events. It is easy for us to normalise in the context of football behaviour that should not be normalised and should not be acceptable. I know a number of people who are middle-class people with significant responsibilities who, when they attend those events, their behaviour is unlike at any other point in their life, I hope. I do not know what they do behind the closed doors of their homes, and sometimes I worry about that. However, if it is anything like the behaviour that they exhibit in those contexts, it is very concerning. It is one of the few contexts that we have in our society at which people do that and think that it is normal. Actually, it is not normal, and we should not be accepting that it is normal. I do not think that that has improved dramatically. I think that there will be some people who will be aware that they are more under scrutiny and are more liable to our response than they were before the legislation. I do not think that the legislation is a panacea, by the way. I am not here to hold a candle for it, but I am here to say that we cannot accept the behaviour that we get in the context of football any more than we would anywhere else, and that we need to look for leadership in that. I do not see the leadership that we need coming from, for example, the football industry. I just do not see it. Therefore, it is important that the Government takes a lead on our behalf and encourages us all to take a lead in saying that this is unacceptable and that we will not put up with it. I used to attend football matches regularly, but I now have a very young family and it is somewhat paid to my attendance at games, but I still go to the odd one. My experience is similar to what Reverend Galloway was saying. It does not appear to have got any worse, but I do not think that it has got any better either. As Chris Oswald said, it is very hard to measure and hard to gauge, but I do not see any sort of improvement in terms of behaviour at football matches. It has not changed dramatically. Debbie, I appreciate that you say that you are not a football fan, but from the forums, the women's forums that you hold and from your previous submissions, can you give us a flavour of how you feel this legislation? Does it make you feel safer? Does it help on your way to travelling to matches? Is that why you do not want to see this bill? Women have come to our events and I emphasise that point, because we can only take the voices of the women that attend our events, which are in their hundreds. We are a very small organisation, but we cover Scotland widespread. They have felt increasingly terrified and scared about particularly public transport and public places such as pubs when football games are on. They have given us evidence on that and our evidence contains the quotes directly from women, but we actually did to round tables with young women and it extends to so much as school uniform and they are feeling that they cannot wear their own school tie because they are subjected to abuse from what school they go to. We find that to be completely unacceptable as a women's organisation, any form of violence against women is completely unacceptable. That is a form of violence against women when you are attacked for your gender. I cannot tell you whether it is improved or not in the football grounds because I personally do not have that. Women have not in particular told us that, but what they have told us is how they feel. The emphasis is on the women that have come to us that they are in particular scared and feel under scrutiny when they are at matches. I just wanted to pick up on the communications and the engagements that you have had with women across the country. When you said that you have held a number of events and you consulted with women, can you give us an idea of how many women you consulted? Every six weeks we obtain a round table event, which I am in charge of organising not so much as dealing with the round tables. We want every six weeks, which can be anything from eight to twelve women. We hold road shows, which our last few have been 80 to 120 women have turned up to our road show events. Our conferences in particular as well, which general conversation can come up on because it is round table based after a panel of speakers, can be anything up to 120 to 140 women at a time. We hold a lot of events, a lot of round tables with women, and we also speak to women on a daily basis about blogging. We also have feedback on social media and our website where women can send in their voices if they need to. We are very inclusive of all voices of women. Have you had any specific events to discuss the repeal of this act? Yes, we held two events, one with young women in particular around it, a school age to about 20, and we held another round table discussion with women of a mixture of ages about the actual, recently about this. Whereas we have held discussions constantly about it, there is always a talk of what is going on. The two specific events, how many women attended them? There were 20 young women at the young women's one and I think there was about 40 at the other one because it was two round tables. Was the evidence that you gave committee based on those 60? No, there was evidence from widespread from road shows as well from where women have came to hasn't discussed it. Yes, because I'm keen to understand how many women support the repeal and how many women don't, given that you said at the start that you've been contacted by 40 women. Yes, we have. I was just keen to get a flavour of how many women you actually spoke to that supported the repeal and how many were against it. The other thing I wanted to ask you, you said in your evidence that women have reported being groped, physically assaulted or even threatened with rape. I struggle a bit to understand why you think the offensive behaviour at football gives you protection against being groped, physically assaulted or threatened with rape, because they are all in the range of sexual offences. I would put to you that there is protection under the law for women that are threatened with sexual assault, regardless of this bill. If someone was threatened with rape or sexual assault or violence out in the street today, they would be protected under the law. I think that you will find that there have been numerous threats of rape being taken under breach of peace, which, as far as we are concerned, is not adequate for a threat of rape. Threatening of rape is a form of abuse towards women. We are not covered by hate crime. Hate crime, as in Lord Brackendale's, which we have a submission into to include women in hate crime. Women are not covered by that, and a lot of abuse is targeted to women because they are easy target for people to target, because they are genderly, do not fight back as much. Women that are being getting rape threats are not covered by sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is being touched, being given a touch in your body, whereas threatening women just because of their gender by shouting, I am going to rape you because they say something different. Everyone is entitled to their voice, and I am afraid that that is unacceptable. Historically—and police still do—they use an aggravator in breach of the peace. Do you not believe that that is sufficient? No. Very good point. Gender is not covered in hate crime. I hope that that is something Lord Brackendale is going to look at. Fulton is very small. I just want to pick up on Mary's point there and ask Debbie if her views that she has expressed is on behalf of the Scottish Women's Convention, because I think that the line of questioning there from Mary—I know from no Mary that she would not have intended it that way—was slightly unfair in that we have not asked any other organisation how many individuals they have spoken to. What we have asked individual agencies and organisations is what their view is on this particular repeal bill. I ask Debbie if that is the view of the Scottish Women's Convention. That is totally the view of the Scottish Women's Convention. We are a very inclusive organisation. We have hundreds of women who submit evidence to us on various things. We are open to any voices that come forward to us, and every women's voice is important to us. Hence why I brought up the 40 women that had contacted us over the weekend. We would not ignore the fact that there has been a campaign over the weekend to contact us, but we say that the women who turned up to our events in their numbers have said what is included in our consultation response, and we cannot include voices that did not come forward to us in a consultation response. We have given the voices of what we have got, and it is a lot of women that we deal with on a daily basis. The question is about the fact that you were able to make evidence on some of the elements of your evidence. I am glad that you were able to make it along this week. We heard in evidence to the committee on 3 October. We heard from fans against criminalisation, and I know that Mary touched on some of the points that you raised about how you compiled your evidence, because that was certainly a point that you had raised. We tried to correspond with the Scottish Women's Convention in particular, but it was unable to provide us with any details about where it had collected that evidence, how many women it represented, the age ranges involved or any basic statistics, and it was just really to give you a chance to respond to that if that had indeed been the case. I can say that Jeanette Finlay herself did not contact the organisation via email or any form of like that. She did tweet to us occasionally, but our policy is not to respond to tweets that create any sort of negativity. We would not respond to tweets, but she never actually sent us any form of questioning. We did have one woman contact us originally when that evidence was given, but it was not Jeanette Finlay herself that contacted us. It was somebody else. We are still in the process of trying to arrange a meeting with her out of work hours, which is causing a bit of issue. We will get round to talking to her at some point, but Jeanette Finlay herself has not contacted us unless it is over to her. I also want to touch on another point that you raised in your evidence to the committee, where you said that the breach of the peace did not send a strong enough message of condemnation in regard to offensive behaviour that can occur at football events. That is one of the fears that has been articulated. It was Mr Borowski in his opening statement to the committee that he said that we should not underestimate the effect that legislation has on attitudes. Although that has been an argument used in the committee, we should not be legislating ourselves out of a problem here. I think that it sets the tone of the behaviour that we are willing to accept. I was just wondering what your opinion was on that. I have got to say to make sure that we put the view across. Our consultation response clearly says that we do feel that there are amendments that need to be taken place in the bill and clarifications of how the bill should be used. Also, with education to the police forces and to all ages, including in schools, we feel that a lot of education could take place around the bill and how it affects people's use of sectarian language. We also feel that it is very important to say that women are not covered by anything other than that when it comes to equality. The bill covers the equality strands, which obviously includes women. Therefore, it gives women that extra protection. If whatever is said or done to us is targeted through the bill, they are able to use the bill to get the justice that they deserve. We have to make sure that we write in those things that all women do not agree on what we are putting in and all women will never agree with what we put in. However, we have to make sure that all women have a voice. We add a voice for those women who feel that they are treated unfairly at those matches. We are here to give that voice over, so that is why we are giving this evidence session today. I know that I have already declared it, but I just mentioned the whole idea of transparency. I am the convener of the Supreme Court of Independent Supporters Association. Basically, my first question would be, on this urban myth that seems to have taken over now that the game of shame in 2011 between Rangers and Celtic is what was the knee-jerk reaction to this legislation. A lot of fans would like to paint it the idea that it was the two managers effectively going toe-to-toe or what is parochial in owning Glasgow as having a square goal with one another. However, it was in the case that the fact that the game of shame was 34 arrests, the previous game in the whole Strathclyde regional area that had been 229 arrests during the game. All of that game of shame, 16 people were arrested for offences of a sectarian nature. Is it not the case that, with all that background, that came in the back of about three or four games that were constantly getting worse, even so much so that Chick Young football commentator said in 40 years of covering old firm matches, this one is up there with one of the most scandalous I have ever seen, and he was talking in the football field and off of the park as well. With that as a backdrop, do the witnesses consider that the legislation was necessary to tackle offensive or hateful behaviour at football? To tackle that, because we are running quite a bit behind, so I would be pleased if members' questions could be as succinct as possible and the answers. I think that that is a difficult question to answer, but I do not think that the issue is around one particular incident or one short period of time, but around a culture of behaviour that has been around for a long time, which has not responded to pressure from society in other ways to change. I am not saying that the legislative approach was any more successful, but I am concerned that we still have that potential for behaviour, that potential for a number of arrests for flashpoints and the like. Removing the legislation without serious consideration about what the alternatives are to making a difference is a matter of concern. The whole point of the bill itself is that a reasonable person finds offensive. Back at the timescale that we are talking about, there was a song called The Famine Song, which was sung by ranger supporters with regard to it. It caused such a stushy to use a Scottish word that UNICEF and the Irish Government were talking about it as well. Surely we need to ensure that that is what you said, Reverend Galloway, that the idea of culture—a lot of football fans believe—is part of their culture. Surely the legislation helps us to do that, along with a basket of other measures, to ensure that we get to a place where we can try to find that that is not allowed anymore. Is that directed to anyone in particular? I will revan Galloway, because he mentioned the cultural part. You would have more of a view of the evidence of what has happened since the act that I have in those regards. I think that there have been a number of instances where people have stopped singing particular things when they have known that they have been under additional scrutiny and filming at the time. I am not sure how effective that has been, but I would like people to stop singing those songs completely. I think that I would like them to do it because they know that it is wrong, just as a human being, to do it. It is offensive beyond the people that are there. It is offensive to people who hear it when they are watching the highlights of the match or whatever. I would like people to stop doing it now, because it is just the wrong thing to do to your neighbours. I am not sure how important the legislation is in that. I am afraid that I have to move on, George Adam. Ben, could you now come in please? I think that you had a really good go at that, George. We have to move on. Thank you very much, convener. It is a very good morning panel. I think that, as Reverend Galloway has said, the legislation is not a panacea, but there is evidence that it is making individuals think twice about singing certain songs and behaving in certain ways. In that same theme, I note that it has been stated in the Church of Scotland Church and Society Council evidence that repealing the act without replacement would be a symbol that our elective representatives do not think that behaving offensively or sending threatening communications is problematic. In light of that, do you have concerns that some supporters may believe, if the act is repealed, that certain behaviours are now acceptable and have been decriminalised? I think that there is a danger that people will interpret things in the light of their own pre-delections. The reasons that are put forward for repeal may be one thing. What people take out of that may well be another. I think that there is a danger that there are people who will see that as a particular form of victory, which would be very unhelpful indeed. That would not be the reason for the repeal if it were to be proceeded with, but the way that it would be perceived and perceptions are very important in those things. We think that there is a real danger in that regard, unless part of that process was to say very clearly that all of those kinds of behaviour are unacceptable and that here are the alternatives that we put forward to ensure that society's way of dealing with them is strengthened. I do not really see that in this process currently. Thank you very much. Any other panelist, Mr Hosmild, at Borowskie? Thank you. Just looking for quite a simple answer from everyone, really. Some of you mentioned in your opening statements about the review that is currently being undertaken by Lord Bracadale, and it is really just in terms of the legislation. Do you feel that it would make more sense for us to wait until the outcome of that review, before we look at the repeal of that, and just really straightforward answer from each of the panel? I guess that we are always surprised for this, because we have covered it. Okay, thank you. In respect to the most appropriate way to tackle hate crime at football, does the panel believe that some form of legislation is required to tackle offensive behaviour and hate crime at football? Again, a yes or no from around the room. I will start with you, sir. Yes. The question, I do not think that one is amenable quite so clearly to a one-word answer, because the question that is in the background of that is whether there is adequate legislation other than that act, and that is something on which I would look to the lawyers for an answer. The one thing that I am struck by, and perhaps this is a partial answer to George Adam as well, is that the act is being used. There are a substantial number of prosecutions each year, and that rather suggests that the general common law and statutory offences that could otherwise be used are regarded by the police and Crown Office as not covering the entire patch. That is before we come to section 6 on offensive communications, which I presume we will at some stage convene. Yes, I will very much agree. In the 90s, I spent a lot of time working with people who were victims of racial harassment, and at that point racial harassment was very often prosecuted as being a breach of the priests. It simply did not reflect the impact, the social significance, the dangers that such behaviour put forward. Again, I believe that the breach, whilst it would deal with the physical thing, would not deal with the motivation, the behaviour or the social impact of it. I would worry if we were to move back to a position with a catch-all of breach. Debbie Yew? That is exactly what happened as well. I basically stated that earlier as well, that the breach of the priests is just not what is needed to actually capture the fact that it is being a woman that is being abused for being a woman. It is not enough. Reverend Galloway? Before the legislation, the ways that the law was being enforced at football matches was relatively ineffective. It has given an additional focus in that regard. I think that there is a need to not remove that focus, whether it is through the legislation or other, but there is a need for that focus to be there that says to people in those contexts particularly where we have put up with behaviour that we would not elsewhere. No longer will that be the case, because that is not what football is for and that is not what it is about. Mr Owen? The importance of legislation, which is well thought out, is suitable and proportionate to the aim that it is trying to achieve. That is not in question, but I think that Mary Gowdian made a good point about that we should not necessarily be legislating ourselves out of a problem. It is important to appreciate that accompanying legislation, whether it is that particular act or other legislation that has similar offences attached to it. I think that there has to be accompanied by something other than simply just legislation and words on a page. It is incumbent, I think, upon Government to make sure that there is awareness across the country in terms of what is, in all honesty, people should know what is right and wrong. I think that we have got to be careful. We talk about sending out the wrong message earlier on, but there is a danger that we underestimate the public. I think that most people do know what is right and what is wrong, what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, whether it is at football or on the street or whatever, or in a pub. I think that, quite often, unfortunately, many people are alcohol-filled and it does not matter a jot what law is in place. They will behave inappropriately anyway. I think that there has to be more than simply just throwing legislation at a problem. In terms of the religious agrivation statistics that were released in May of this year, 57 of those were anti-catholic or against catholicism, targeted catholicism, and that has been consistently high for a number of years now. We took a slight dip last year, but it has always been over 50 per cent. I think that the next group under that is anti-prodicent behaviour, which is 23 or 24 per cent. Catholics make up only 16 per cent of the Scottish population, so it is significantly disproportionate. We need to try and, rather than simply throwing legislation at things, which of course has its place, but we have to get to the root of the problem. I think that it is important to hear, and Governments have done it in other areas, to have an acceptance and acknowledgement on the part of government that there is a distinct problem here, and I still think that there is a distinct anti-catholic problem in Scotland. Sectarianism, Ephraim Barofsky, made a very good point when he said that it is an ify concept, and I think that that is absolutely right. I think that it is an ify concept. If something is anti-catholic, we should call it anti-catholic. If it is anti-prodicent, we should call it anti-prodicent. If it is anti-cemitic, we should call it anti-cemitic. I think that we need the leadership that Reverend Galloway referred to from Government on this particular issue, because we need to get to the root of problems. At first of all, we need to accept that a problem actually exists. I am interested in the panel's views on other initiatives that tackle the root cause of sectarianism such as education. We heard in the last panel people talking about education programmes that could work. I am thinking particularly in the schools that the committee undertook a survey of schools, so we know that a lot of young people know about the act. I want to know if you can frame your answers in terms of the education of young people and how a repeal of the act, given that a lot of young people know about the current act and have based their thoughts on what they replied to the survey on that. How a repeal might impact on any education programmes? I think that we have touched on it in the wider society of it. It might send out a wrong message or other people have said that it might not. I know that we are running out of time, so convener will be looking over at me. That is why I am asking if it can be framed in that light, because that is what I am wanting to tease out. Unfortunately, education is open-ended. It is not in doctrine of education. You give young people information, and they make of it what they want. Therefore, it is informed by their pre-existing prejudices. That is simply a sad fact, but I can give you one appalling example that I just heard about this week. This Parliament, as a Government, supports the programme of school visits to Auschwitz, the intention of which is to educate young people about where hatred can lead. A young girl in the Jewish community who had recently visited Auschwitz with a youth group received a text message or a tweet from her supposed best friend of an extreme and outrageous antisemitic nature. What that shows is that education sometimes provides the ammunition that people can use to fuel their pre-existing hatred. I do not think that education alone can be simply looked to any more than legislation alone can be looked to as a panacea. In this particular context, obviously, there is a lot to be done. I do not want to end up merely swapping statistics, but the hate crime statistics published by the Government and Crown Office that Antoni has already referred to show that, proportionately to the size of the community, he is absolutely right. There is a disproportionate representation of anti-Catholic hatred. The level of antisemitic hatred is 40 times that relative to the size of the community. There is a lot of work still to be done. As far as we are concerned, education is vitally important for anything, but we have stated that there needs to be more education around sectarianism in schools. The impact that it has on each other is very important. Young women—we have had a mixture of young women from all areas—come to us. We are not just the Catholic and Protestant sides of it. It is a mixture of everything. The fact that they feel intimidated for going to certain schools is indicative of what happens in daily life. It is very important that any young woman—or I can go as far as to say young people—should feel safe. If education has failed in that sort of way, maybe we should be educating them more on it. That is why we call for more education on this sort of form. We would hope that, as a personal level, we would hope that people would not do that to each other, but it does not work like that. As far as young women have come to us, education is vitally important. I think that there is a lot of good work going on. I know that there is a lot of good work going on in schools and organisations such as Nill by Mouth. I know that the football authorities that are sitting behind there, the churches, and various folk are involved in good education. I suppose that what I was trying to look at was, if we have got, there is a wide knowledge about this particular act among school children and young people. For any education programme that is going on, where do you think the repeal act would fit into that? I know that we might only have time for maybe one more answer. The two responses so far have been absolutely great. I agree with everything that has been said, but I am looking at the repeal act in the context of any further work. There is a huge amount of very good work going on, locally very committed work. In the south side of Glasgow, we work with hundreds and hundreds of young people across the education spectrum. We take about 100 young people—16-year-olds—from the local Catholic secondary and the non-denominational secondary together to Belfast each year to do additional reflection on that. There is an enormous amount of that work going on. The question is whether, at this point, a repeal that is too hasty sits in contradiction to that, or whether the engagement with those issues is a bit longer consideration. I think that young people understand very clearly that sectarianism is like racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism. They develop in their lives a response to that weave of attitudes and behaviours. We want to support them in doing that and be very careful before we introduce any message that could suggest to them that it is not as important as they are beginning to think it is. We are running very badly behind time, so could your answers be as succinct as possible? I think that if we were to repeal the act and move to a purely educative system, we would go back the way it went, as we have said already. My concern would be particularly that, if there is no sanction, young people would go to a game, see behaviour, which we would say is unacceptable, and believe that, as there is no sanction, they can behave in that way. Just moving on, it was mentioned earlier about the concerns around repeal of section 6. I just want to ask the panellists if they are able to elaborate on any concerns that have got about an increase in online abuse and threats, particularly if they have the concerns that four of the panel members have already expressed about repeal of section 6 specifically of the act. I am more of an expert on online abuse than I am on football. I myself have been targeted for being a witness in a court case by someone who has obviously taken the trouble to find my personal email address, not sending messages to an organisation. We have to take account of the world that we now live in at which the electronic world, at any rate, does not recognise national boundaries. One of the things that the lawyers tell us about section 6 is that it is an important transnational power that catches conduct that would otherwise not be caught by Scott's law. That is another important reason why, if it is not retained in exactly its present form, it should be amended rather than repealed. Given the runaway growth of social media, it is probably a matter that needs more careful and extended consideration of the kind that Lord Bracadale is giving it, rather than simply knee-jerk repeal. That is an extra territorial aspect that is not covered elsewhere in Scotland. Quickly, section 6 is vitally important to be kept from what we have been given. It is very important that we criminalise online abuse of any sorts. It is not just young people who are affected by social media—it can be all ages—and we need to remember that. There are not just young women who come to us with abuse on social media. It is also women of all ages. It is very important that sectarianism online has to be dealt with appropriately. Thank you, convener. On section 6, the threatening communications piece, a number of you have suggested that one of the key functions of the act is that it sends out this message. Unpacking that in terms of the overall act, specifically on section 6, is it your view that section 6 has any impact in sending a message that that particular type of behaviour is unacceptable, illegal or both? Who would like to answer this, Mr Oswell? Section 6 is perhaps closest to prohibitions already in place around incitement to racial hatred. It is a very high bar. There are very few prosecutions every year on that issue, but it is a very serious issue. I would be concerned if section 6 were to be lost. It may not be a clause that is used, particularly often, but it has a very strong significance. If we can pick up on that, that behaviour is still going on, and yet, as you rightly pointed out, Mr Oswell, there have been very few prosecutions under section 6. To go back to the point that Mr Barofci made earlier on when he said that the act is being used, will it rather suggest that this part of the act is not being used? Why not? You would probably need to direct that to the police and prosecutors. What I can say is that incitement to racial hatred, which is a very similar type of offence, is used on a dozen occasions every year. The frequency of its use does not undermine the importance of those prosecutions. I add two brief points to that. One is that my understanding from some of the other submissions to this committee is that what section 6 adds to other legislation is the extraterritorial element. If that is the case, it may very well be that one of the reasons why it is not used, or at least that it does not get to court as much as it might, is because of the unhelpful attitude of the social media internationals who are unprepared to provide the evidence that would allow a prosecution to succeed. It may not be to do with the nature of the offence, and the thing that concerns me most is that individuals, whether they are members of my community or any other community, should feel safe, and in particular should feel safe in their own homes. What we are talking about in section 6 is people who are being targeted effectively and anonymously by the so-called bedroom warriors who do not see the effect of their actions, but the result of that can be exceptionally serious indeed for people's sense of wellbeing, their welfare and indeed their continued existence. Finally, the logical progression from that is to ask, given the lack of prosecutions, given that this seems to be the less well-known part of the act, what is the panel's view on what would happen in terms of online abuse, in terms of the type, in terms of the volume, if that part of the act were to be repealed? First of all, I personally have been subjected to online abuse for my faith, and I know that I am not alone. It is a growing problem, and it is a vile problem. I think that Efrem Barofsky is correct to refer to the Lord Bracadale review. That is an opportunity to achieve the most appropriate legislation in order to tackle that particular problem. Section 6, as Liam Kerr says, is not used very often, and I think that that is something that we need to be looked at. I think that one of the problems here is the behaviour of adults. We tend to look at young people and blame them for some of the behaviours or most of the behaviour that we see on social media, but, by beating by celebrities, even civic leaders on Twitter, for example, it creates a culture that suggests to young people that social media is just a free-for-all, and they can behave in any way that they like. Hence, we have the bedroom warriors that Efrem Barofsky referred to. Again, that is something that maybe needs ownership. Section 6 is not being used very often. There are perhaps other provisions. Some will certainly argue that there are other provisions that would cover the behaviour that is cited in section 6. You could repeal the act, but I still think that you are going to have that problem either way. Again, I think that it needs ownership and it needs something from any Government to tackle and to come to a solution that tackles that behaviour. Of course, we will go back to what Fulton MacGregor said about education, and I think that that is vitally important. However, if we want to change the culture of online hate and online abuse, we need to look to the adults, first and foremost, in the way that they behave, because they are setting an example to young children that certain behaviours are acceptable. I will add that you have to remember that social media can sometimes be anonymous. That is very important to state, because you do not know who the abuse is coming from. It can be names and pictures that do not represent a person. That is where it becomes very dangerous if you do not get that information from companies about who that person is behind, and the image that is there is a social media account. You need to remember that that is vitally important. I have always maintained a policy that the committee would ask all the questions first. It is our duty to scrutinise this bill, but given James Kelly has to leave and has time constraints, I am going to bring him in now, and then Mary will conclude our line of question after James has exhausted his questions. I am a presetive of that convener and I am also a presetive of the time constraints. I just want to raise one point with the panel. We have heard in previous evidence sessions that in terms of charges brought under the Act 72 per cent of the people who have been charged are under the age of 30. We have also heard evidence that a lot of these are people who have been brought into the criminal justice system for the first time. Does the panel share the concerns that have been raised about the number of first-time offenders that have been brought into the criminal justice system? Do you think that the alternatives to prosecution should be sought in some cases? Again, if you look at the profile of people who are convicted of racially motivated offences, you will find that 50 per cent of people who are convicted are under the age of 20, 50 per cent of them are under the age of 16. I think that what you are seeing is a reflection of people who are more likely to carry out these types of acts than any particular focus on younger people. As to whether or not people are being brought into the criminal justice system because of the act, I would say that it is because of their behaviour, rather than the act. The act is simply setting out behaviour that is felt to be socially damaging. I think that we should always be looking at alternatives to prosecution, not simply with this legislation but in our approach to people, and particularly in our approach to young people. How do we encourage people away from behaviour that is detrimental to other people and to society? It is really important, but not to have a sanction on that behaviour would be very unfortunate. There does come a point where people have to learn that behaviour is unacceptable and would not be tolerated. It is always unfortunate for me when a young person comes into the criminal justice system, but there are flexible responses of the system to people and we need to exercise those. However, we would not do away with all legislation as a way of enabling that. I agree with everything that has just been said by the previous two speakers. Unless there is independent evidence that shows that the proportions of prosecutions are out of line with the proportions of perpetrators, then that is simply a fact. I suspect that, if you look at driving offences, you may find exactly the same effect. No-one else wants to comment? Thank you, convener. I will roll my two questions into one. I would be grateful if the panel can answer with a yes or a no if you have a view. Do the panel think that the 2012 act has had an impact on reducing sectarianism? I specifically mean sectarianism, and there is no definition of sectarianism in Scots law. Would it be beneficial to have one? Who would like to start? I am happy to start at the end of that. Whether or not there is a definition of sectarianism in Scots law is possibly a different question, but, as a couple of us have already said, the issue is not sectarianism as properly defined, which itself is, dare I say it, a sectarian concept because sectarianism is an intra-religious phenomenon. What we are talking about here is religious hatred, or hatred of a religion. I think that a couple of people have referred to that as well. The way in which the statistics are published does not talk about incidents directed against somebody of a particular faith but motivated by hatred of that particular faith. That, frankly, I think is how it should be. Having said all that about the second part of Mary Fee's question, I do not think that I can answer the first. Does anyone else want to comment? In terms of the impact, I do not believe that the 2012 act to answer briefly has had any impact as far as I can see in tackling sectarianism. On the point of sectarianism and the definition of it, I refer to my earlier evidence that it is an unhelpful term. I think that we need to call specific behaviour for what it really is and not just have it under this banner of sectarianism. That is helpful. Does anyone else want to comment? The act has not been around for a very long time. Sectarianism has been around for a very long time. I think that I would want to have seen over a slightly longer period, along with other initiatives, what a difference might be made. On the advisory group on tackling sectarianism, I think that the hardest thing that we had to deal with was to try to define sectarianism. We bandied that around for quite a long time and came up with something in the end that was entirely unsatisfactory. We have different forms of sectarianism present in our society. That intra issue that Ephraim is talking about is clearly part of that. It is true within the Christian tradition, but it is true within the Muslim tradition. Those things are very difficult, but we just have to accept that they are there and they have to be responded to. Where they become detrimental to people on the other side of that or within our society at large, we have a responsibility, even where there are sensitivities, to intervene and try to make a difference to the behaviours. That concludes a line of questions. I thank the witnesses, particularly for being brief when they were asked to be. We are under huge time constraints to hear another panel and to hear all the people that we want to hear when we are scrutinising this legislation. Thank you all very much for appearing to today. That was very helpful. I suspend now briefly to allow a change over of witnesses and a come-for-break of five minutes. I welcome our second panel of witnesses, giving evidence today on the offensives behaviour at football and threatening communications repeals Scotland. Bill Desmond Ziola, Glasgow Bar Association, Alan McCready, head of research, Law Society of Scotland, Professor Fiona Leverick, Professor of criminal law and criminal justice, University of Glasgow, Stuart Reagan, CEO, Scottish Football Association and Neil Donkaster, chief executive of Scottish professional football league. I thank you all for your written submissions and I thank the last two witnesses, particularly Stuart Reagan and Neil Donkaster. It has been quite difficult to find a mutually convenient time and I am very pleased that you were able to attend today and that you managed to make what has been an excellent submission, as have all the others that we have had from the panellists today. In general terms, the bill proposes to repeal the 2012 act in its entirety. Do you think that that is a sensible proposition? If so, why? Good morning, panel. I am grateful for the opportunity to come before you this morning and speak on behalf of the Glasgow Bar Association. In relation to the 2012 bill, it has been stated before that it is probably unfortunate that the two sections, section 1 and section 6, were almost amalgamated into one act. I sense from the questioning of the other panel before us that clearly that one issue from those panel members was section 6 in its entirety and their concerns of it being repealed. However, can I just touch up on a point that one of the committee members made to one of those panel members earlier, that in relation to section 6 there was a question as to why it is not being used. I think that it was Mr Kerr who raised the issue there. As well, in the Police Scotland response to the committee, it says that it is because of the narrow scope of section 6 and the wording of section 6. Clearly it is not working. Clearly it is not applicable that the police feel comfortable in using it. If they are not feeling comfortable in using it, I accept what the faith groups are saying. However, if the police service of Scotland is not comfortable in using section 6 due to its narrow scope, surely it is time to revisit it as part of the other suggestions and comments that have been made regarding section 1. I thank the Justice Committee for affording the law society an opportunity to provide oral evidence this morning. The law society has no view at all on whether or not this act, the 2012 act, should be repealed and very much takes a view that that is a matter for the legislature. However, it did provide some evidence, written evidence and oral evidence, at the bill stage. Much of that has been replicated in its written evidence to this committee. It has in the past and continues to highlight some of the more practical aspects, the clarity that the act affords and its enforceability. Those are some of the issues that remain very much live for the society now. I do not have a particularly strong view as to whether the act should be repealed or not. I think that the main reason for that is that I would just confirm what some other witnesses have said in other sessions, which is that pretty much all of the behaviour in the act is covered by other criminal offences, whether that is common law breach of the peace or whether that is statutory offences. I think there are advantages to keeping the act. There are probably two advantages. One is it is very specific in when somebody is convicted under that act, it is recorded very specifically the type of behaviour that they engage in, whereas if you are using a common law offence like breach of the peace, you lose that specificity. Although having said that breach of the peace can be racially or religiously aggravated, so you can capture that there. The symbolic point is a good one that some people have made that if you did repeal the act now, I do not know if that might send a message that all of a sudden this type of behaviour, sectarian chanting and so on, is acceptable. You would have to have a strong education campaign around that. The argument for repeal is possibly that the act has lost the confidence of the people governed by it, football supporters, even though it does not create any new criminal offences, but that the conduct was already covered, it may well have lost the confidence of the people that are targeted by it. It is certainly very, very unusual, almost unheard of for an act containing criminal offences to be specifically targeted at football supporters. We did a review of worldwide legislation for Lord Bracadale for his hate crime review, and it was really the only other comparable piece of legislation we could find was in England and Wales, where they prohibit racist and offensive chanting at football matches. There is nowhere else that has specifically football-related criminal offences, so you can see why football fans might feel or perceive that they are being targeted by the act. But the reality is that pretty much everything in the act is covered by other criminal offences, so I will stop there. Thank you and thanks to the committee for giving me the opportunity to come this morning at short notice, as we are unable to attend on the 14th, so that is really appreciated. Like previous speakers, I would say that whether the act should be repealed is a matter for others rather than the Scottish Football Association, but I would like to make a number of points relating to the act. Back in 2011, after the Celtic Rangers Scottish Cup replay, which led to the summit being set up by Alex Amond and supported by Stephen House, we participated fully and debated fully about making improvements to behaviour in Scotland generally, and I think it's fair to say that the Scottish FFA at the time said that anything that can help improve behaviour has to be seen as a positive thing. I would stick by that and I think that the direction of travel of the act was definitely something that was to be encouraged, but things have changed since then. We've moved on. The Scottish FFA completely overhauled its disciplinary procedures in 2011, introduced a new independent judicial system. We've strengthened our guidelines for an acceptable conduct in partnership with the SPFL, and we've seen a number of other developments, including the introduction of supporter liaison officers across the Scottish professional league clubs, which have worked very closely with fans' groups in order to try and improve behaviour. I think that the act, whilst it might have had the best of intentions, has served to damage relationships between a number of key stakeholders, and football fans in a recent survey, 71% of them out of 13,000, said that the act hadn't been effective, and therefore if that is the case and there is a belief it's not working, if the police aren't using certain parts of it, then there has to be questions about its effectiveness. I think the final point I'd like to make is that the review of hate crime has the potential to pick up many aspects that are perhaps positive in regard to the Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act. I recently met Lord Bracadale and expressed a number of points about how he may be able to address hate crime generally, which can be seen to affect or to be put in place to address all of Scottish society and not target football fans unfairly. The key point that I'd like to make in this evidence session is that football has been targeted and singled out and a piece of legislation has been put in place that focuses exclusively on football. No other sport has that, no other element of society has that. I looked back over the last 24 hours in preparing for this session and identified, for example, in the music industry between 2004 and 2013 at T in the Park. There were 3,600 incidents, three attempted murders, three drug-related deaths, 10 sexual assaults, one abduction and 2,000 drug offences. There wasn't a summit called after the T in the Park events. There was no emergency legislation put in place. Football has been targeted and many of the issues that the act has sought to address can be addressed by other legislation. On that basis, if you accept that sectarian songs are mostly sung at football matches? Football gets painted or gets tarred unfairly with being the source of a lot of unacceptable behaviour. None of us like to hear sectarian songs being chanted. They don't just happen at football matches, it's a society thing. One of the previous speakers, Mr Reverend Galloway, said that this is an issue that's been around for hundreds of years. Yes, there are incidents at football matches. We believe that we have rules and guidelines now in place to address those. I think that the direction of the legislation can be caught in other existing and perhaps amended legislation through the head crime review. Little I can add to what Stuart has already said. What I perhaps can add though is that there's actually very little interaction between the act and the work that the clubs and ourselves have to do. The act is concerned with criminal standard of proof and sectarian behaviour, whereas the work that we carry out relates to unacceptable conduct, which is a much broader concept. There's also a much lower standard of proof—it's a balance of probabilities. We have very detailed rules and very detailed guidelines that govern unacceptable conduct, and we work very closely with clubs to minimise the incidents of unacceptable conduct within Stadia. Can I expand that by asking you if the 41 recommendations drawn up by the joint action group have all been implemented? If so, has that resulted in your opinion improved behaviour at and around football matches? We're going through a process at the moment in conjunction with Government monitoring what is going on at games. We have delegates, SPFL delegates, that we point to all of the premiership matches, all televised games within the league and any other high-profile games. We take reports from those delegates and we then use that information to take action if required against the club's concerns in accordance with our rules. We will and are monitoring what is going on within Stadia, and it's too early to say at this stage what the trends are. I directly answer my question. Have the 41 recommendations been implemented? I haven't got that information to end. Without having a list of the 41 recommendations in front of me, I couldn't go through one by one. I would say that we were part of the group that designed the 41 recommendations. We worked hard in June after the summit met to change our rules, to change our governance procedures, to implement new initiatives. We worked with the SPFL to deliver a single league body for Scottish football, which resulted in the merger of the SPL and the SFL. Many of the issues that were identified at the time have been addressed. Whether that's all 41, I couldn't say, but I would certainly like to think that the majority, if not all of them, have been addressed. Can you just clarify when the joint action group was set up? The joint action group was set up after the Celtic Granges Scottish Cup semi-final in March 2011. There's been no monitoring of the recommendations since then. I'm not sure how many have been implemented. We've worked with the various authorities. We've been working with the Scottish Government ever since. The Scottish Government, as you know, has a football lead, and since 2011, we have regular meetings with the Scottish Government. That has led to a number of changes. For example, the strengthening of the guidelines on unacceptable conduct, the introduction of delegates at matches, not just in the league but also in the Scottish Cup. I would say that we have worked very closely with the Government. We haven't got a tracker that sits and looks at every single one of the recommendations, but I can certainly, if this is something that you're looking for feedback on, we could certainly provide that for you. That would be helpful to be fine, yes. George, could you ask your supplementary and the other one from the SFA questions? Both of them at the same time. We're going to supplementary initially, just so that you can expand on it, Stuart, just a wee bit, because I'm aware of what the support delays on officers are meant to do, because I know from European football and particularly Netherlands that there was a great kind of change in fan behaviour because of it. Could you possibly expand on it from my colleagues in the committee so that they could understand what exactly that programme is? Yes, of course. The Scottish FFA has funded Supportus Direct Scotland to implement a programme that is looking at the introduction of a supporter liaison officer at every one of the top clubs and then working the way down the league. In some cases, that's a full-time paid position. In other cases, it's a voluntary position, but the role of the supporter liaison officer is to effectively act as a bridge between the club and supporters groups and then back into the football authorities as well. They run a number of workshops, they run a number of training sessions where they share best practice, they work with groups to identify ways of improving behaviour, looking at travel initiatives, for example, to get fans safely to grounds and to work with the club to identify areas of discontent and to put in place action plans to address them. Can I go on to my question as well? Currently, there seems to be three debates going on with regards to this bill. There's a political one here, there's a one that seems to be happening between Rangers and Celtic fans and then there's all the rest of us as football fans discussing it. Now, there seems to be a difference of opinions hugely, I think, nil by mouth recently did some work where it found that fans of other teams, apart from Rangers and Celtic, said that sectarianism was a real problem. Rangers and Celtic fans said that it wasn't. One of the things that I'd like to ask is what exactly are the SFA and SPFL doing to actually make sure that they are part of the solution in this whole process? Specifically in relation to sectarianism. Well, certainly the Scottish FFA partners with organisations like Sure Racism, The Red Card for example. Our clubs also have initiatives in place. We've worked with the Scottish Government, we've had seminars and workshops for various parties at Hamlin Park led by Sure Racism, The Red Card. We've changed our rules to ensure that we can deal with unacceptable conduct including sectarianism and other forms of unacceptable behaviour. So there are a whole raft of areas that I would say we're working on and continue to work on with various stakeholders across the game including the Scottish Government. If I can add that we've employed and employed specifically the bulk of his role is to monitor what he's going on in our games, to use the reports of the SPFL delegates to ensure that we have a record of what unacceptable conduct is taking place where and ensure as best we can a consistency of approach to it. There's no doubt that we have amended our rules considerably, amended our guidelines that clubs have to take account of considerably and the focus of the SPFL and all of its member clubs remains on tackling unacceptable conduct where it occurs. Yet today the Reverend Galway told us and albeit as a Church of Scotland minister he was saying from a perspective of someone who's not a football fan but he did say that he is not seeing leadership from football authorities in any shape or form. Do you have anything to add after what you've just said with regards to that? I would encourage the Reverend Galway to come and spend some time with Scottish football clubs and also with the authorities and look at exactly what is happening and some of the education programmes that are taking place, some of the literature that's out there and I would without minimizing or diminishing sectarianism and its impact on Scottish society I would like the committee to be aware that Scottish football has been seen to be the 12th best behaved association out of 55 in Europe and when I look around at some of the footage from other countries for particularly Eastern Europe you know with huge issues with police, riot shields and police horses on the pitch, pyrotechnics right across the stadium. I do believe that we control behaviour as well as we can. There's always room for improvement but I would like to put this into perspective. There are occasional outbursts of sectarian activity and we try and deal with those. This is not something that happens at every football match across the Scottish society. Let's be honest with each other Stuart, it's basically like what I said earlier on there's three debates, there's the political, there's Rangers and Celtic fans and there's the rest of us you know so the whole scenario is it may not be all the games in Scottish football but the problem is I never let my son go to see someone against Rangers or Celtic until he was well over 12, same with my daughter as well, neither of them because I didn't want to have them to go through that kind of problem it's still an issue, it's still a major issue and the situation we have now as it was already said by the Reverend Galloway as well it's a cultural thing and Rangers and Celtic supporters will say automatically it's part of our culture but when does it become like songs like the famine song which I mentioned earlier on and other popular songs that are taken away from their actual kind of part, it's always been a part of football but it's done in a sectarian manner you know what are the football authorities actually doing to say that's unacceptable. Well what and Neil can comment more than myself on this but what the clubs are doing is the clubs are providing stewards to accompany their fans to monitor behaviour both at their home grounds but more importantly when they go away we tend to see more activity perhaps away from home where perhaps there's less control than at those home grounds. I think the other the other thing that's going on is is education at a club level and finally within the SPFL delegate reports that Neil referred to earlier there is the monitoring of any sectarian activity and a record kept of any bad behaviour if you like and that's something that we've agreed to share with Government as part of our ongoing focus in this area. I think I'd echo what Stuart's comments if there are concerns around what's going on at football we would absolutely invite people to come along see what's going on see what's going on at matches see what the work that the clubs are carrying out in the communities we've seen boys against bigotry from Celtic we've seen followed with pride from Rangers there's an awful lot of work that's going on to address what is a wider societal issue and we welcome that. Can I just pursue the issue of discipline with the SFA before we go on to the wider aspects which will involve more of the the panel. I noticed that in your written statement and today you've talked about the revised guidance to members last year both giving enhanced powers to sanction under their jurisdiction any any behaviour that does not comply with having taken all reasonably practical steps to prevent such behaviour. Could you outline what these steps might be? What could a club do to comply with this which is effectively I think a test really whether you would intervene or not all reasonably practical steps? I'm very happy to answer that. I don't want to bore the committee we've got annex five to our rules which is specifically guidance to clubs on what they should be doing and in fact the rules state that any commission that's convened that looks at alleged breaches of our rules when it comes to unacceptable conduct the commission has to look at the extent to which clubs have adhered to our guidelines which are extremely in depth and I would urge any member of the committee who's interested to look at annex five which is available online and to go through that extremely long list of all the things that we we expect clubs to be doing to address unacceptable conduct before it occurs to deal with it when it does occur and then the change to the rules last summer to deal with the aftermath of unacceptable conduct when it has occurred and identify any perpetrators so we continue to refine the rules we continue to make improvements there is a genuine and ongoing focus by the league and its clubs on ensuring that unacceptable conduct is tackled where it occurs and that we try and prevent it from occurring and where it has occurred appropriate measures that are taken after the event. Yes so there should be absolutely no doubt of what that test means. It would be good to see these guidelines in depth if you wouldn't mind sending them or provide the link that would be very helpful. Liam Kerr. Don't see Glasgow Bar and the Law Society in their submissions are now Professor Leverick this morning. State a clear view that there wouldn't be any gaps in the law where we to repeal this act not all witnesses before this committee seem to agree with you so confine yourself purely to the legality of this so not the wider messaging or anything like that how confident are you that there will be no gaps if this law is taken away? As stated in our evidence to the bill in back in 2011 we identified a number of standalone offences and also some statutory aggravations which where we took the view that this would adequately cover any any new standalone offence of offensive behaviour at regulated football matches. We also recognise that the offences and the crimes of common law crimes of breaches of the peace section 38 of the criminal justice Scotland act 2010 we recognise that those would apply across the board and perhaps one issue that's been taken with the legislation or continues to be taken with the legislation is that it is a special capacity offence in that it can only take place at a regulated football match which has a definition which I can perhaps come on to later and I accept that a view has been taken abroad that that is a concern that that is targeting those who are attending football matches but we were certainly of the view that a number of both common law the common law crime of breaches of the peace section 38 and the number of statutory aggravations are and continue to be in place and that the behaviour of football matches offensive behaviour of football matches could could be a dealt with under existing legislation or pre 2012 legislation. I'm very confident that behaviour that if the act was repealed there would be measures in place to cover the behaviour that's prosecuted under the act. I think the only possible issue is one that was touched on briefly earlier which is the extra territorial behaviour issue. What probably wouldn't be covered is behaviour that takes place entirely outside Scotland. The act makes provision for that and I think that that's maybe the one gap that there would be but whether that's an important gap is perhaps open for debate because we maybe you know maybe we don't want to be prosecuting behaviour that takes place entirely outside Scotland and maybe we want to leave that to the the national the national courts of that jurisdiction. You kind of review did you have any statistics of how often it had been used in fact outside Scotland. Oh gosh I don't know is the answer to that. I think there's been at least one case where it has been used but I think I know that I think only because I've read the evidence that was given by I think it was the representative from Crown Office earlier. I have no personal knowledge of that. Like Professor Levery it can unfortunately have no information as to its use extra territorially but it's reflected in our written submission or certainly what was provided to all MSPs in advance of the debate which took place in the Scottish Parliament on 2 November of last year and there's a reference made to the Lord Advocates guideline on the extraterritorial application and he states that if I may, given the practical and logistical difficulties of investigating and prosecuting a crime that occurred outside Scotland, a careful and measured approach must be taken and the authorities in the place where the offence occurred should ordinarily have primary jurisdiction. I think that that's as it should be that there would be that difference to the jurisdiction where the offence was alleged to have taken place. Liam Kerr? Thank you. Mr Zailo, you didn't want to say anything on that point, did you? Just to see the class of artists who shouldn't believe that just like the Professor and the Mr McRae, there would be no gap in the law and I accept what I think but I think maybe Mr Kerr you're referring to maybe the evidence from 3 October from the Crown Office representative and chief assistant constable Higgins and I think that as well if I can point to their evidence I think on page 10 they even say that if the 2012 act would be repealed we would still challenge behaviour on their existing legislation and still arrest people for it. So there is existing legislation there, the only issue I think is what the Professor said is the extra territorial issue. I think there was a Berwick Rangers match with the Rangers fans, I think that is the issue that was touched upon within the Crown's own written submissions but I think as well that I think that issue only covers and encompasses section 6 really and I think that is the issue there but then that goes back to where we were at the beginning with regards to the previous panel and regards to the implementation and use of section 6 which is isn't widespread in any event. If I might press you on the section 6 because the Scottish Government are of the view that the section 6 offends specifically addresses threats intended to start religious hatred and that there isn't any other legislation to cover that specific mischief. Do you have any views on the Government's position on that? With regards to the religious hatred? Sure. At this stage I would maybe take some consideration with regards to more formal written submissions on it but with regards to section 6 the issue with that as well I think because it's the wording of section 2 of the act which allows prosecutors and initially the police service of Scotland to arrest people for the commission offences that the issue is that the wording says that to carry out a seriously violent act I think that's causing concern with the police service of Scotland and that needs addressed before we can take on the issue of whether there's any legislation there to protect certain offences because what then is defined that it's not defined as understanding is what's seriously violent and I think that is why the police service of Scotland are trying to use the section 127 offence which I know that the committee has heard about before and I think that if that offence is going to be the offence that is primarily used by the police service of Scotland and the Crown Office then clearly surely in our submission that the Crown should be instigating that they would wish greater sentencing powers for that section because I know that they've told the committee that it's limited to 12 months rather than the five years that section 6 has already got but I don't think I could really comment on the extent of the religious hatred because I think that the issue before we get on to that is the wording in section 2 but do you concede then that the Scottish Government's position appears to be that if you were to remove section 6 through repeal there would be nothing underlying that or there would be no other act or mischief in place that could be attacked Professor Leverett. I don't think that that would leave a gap because if somebody behaves in a threatening manner or makes a threat that would be covered either by section 38 of the criminal justice and licensing Scotland act threatening an abusive behaviour or if it's online it could be covered by the communications act 2003 section 127 and you could record the fact that it's religiously motivated or has a religious aggravation using the sentencing aggravation provision so I don't think there's a gap. Right, just one final question again to Mr Zealo if I may reflect him back to your comments right at the start and you'll forgive it's a slightly leading question but you talked about section 6. Are you suggesting that as drafted section 6 is not fit for purpose and that is the reason for its lack of use thus far? I touched upon it at the start primarily using the words themselves by the police service of Scotland in their own submission to this committee and their written submissions that the police service of Scotland say in their own words that due to the narrow scope this is not being widely used by police. This section is not in a recidivable context, the next paragraph in their written submission goes on to say that due to the wording of section 6 of the act the majority of this cannot be dealt with using this provision and is in fact dealt with as an offence under the communications act section 127. So there is clearly a problem, it was highlighted as I understand it back through various committees various submissions to the committee and other committees back into this in living with regards to the specific wording of the act. So it's not for me to say whether or not it is badly drafted or not but we can infer if the police service of Scotland are advising this committee in their own words that due to the wording of the act an inference may be drawn that there's an issue with the drafting of the act. Thank you. Salomonrys, Liam McArthur and then Ben Macpherson. Good morning, we heard from the previous panel that there seemed to be a general belief that the act in itself had not had an effect, a discernible effect in relation to behaviour at football grounds but that there was a serious concern about repeal sending an unhelpful message. Given what you've all said about the absence of any gap, were repealed to take place, is there a risk that those with protected characteristics, the groups that we heard from in the previous panel, feel they are protected by a law in a way that that protection in effect isn't real, is more presentational and superficial than they imagine? Are there inherent risks in having a law that effectively gives people false comfort that they have protection under it? I think there maybe is a risk because listening to the speakers that we had earlier, at least some of them clearly feel that the act gives them protection that they don't otherwise have even if actually that perception is not correct. I think there is a risk of that. I think what I would say about that is that's an area where actually we probably should be thinking about Lord Bracadale's hate crime review because of course in this act the only protection that they actually have is in relation to a regulated football match whereas actually I'm sure what people would want is to be protected more generally against hate crime. So I think that there's something to be said here for putting the hate crime bit on pause and waiting to see what Lord Bracadale comes up with. In that respect I mean very often a number of committees one hears that over time the constant amendment of legislation leads to its own complexities and that there are sort of clamours for legislation that pulls all of that together. Is there a risk in holding on to the current legislation and trying to amend it to expand its provisions or its reach in the sense that we build in that complexity rather than clear the slate in relation to this legislation that pretty much all those whether arguing for repeal or not have admitted is defective in certain aspects and allow Lord Bracadale's recommendations then to be taken forward, taken into consideration the full gamut of hate crime that we all clearly wish to see dealt with. The one thing I would say about that is yes but not everything in the act that we're looking at today is a hate crime provision. A lot of it is related to hate crime but the various different parts of the act not all of them are hate crime related some of them are just straightforward public order offences that have no connection to hate crime whatsoever. At least part of the section six criminal offence again is not a hate crime related provision so we although I did say you know hang on wait and see what Lord Bracadale says that that's only going to take you so far because there are parts of the act that don't relate to hate crime at all. The balance I mean that there's obviously a few taken that by repeal that that can send out the the wrong message I would contend that that would really have to be balanced against it as Professor Leverick has alluded to the fact that this is not just a piece of hate crime legislation albeit that its scope is subject to Lord Bracadale's review but I would guess that that really would have to be weighed up against the content of the 2012 act and also how it's working at present, how the court's interpreted it and how it can be enforced. Okay, thank you. Supplementary Ben Fulton and Mary, sorry, Mary. Thank you, convener. Just very briefly, as covered some of the points in response to Liam Kerr around advantages that the Crown and Procurate Fiscal Service have stated in terms of section six, Police Scotland have also suggested to us that the act, as it is, is another useful tool to them when policing football matches in or around football matches on top of the common law breach of the peace and section 38, the criminal justice and licensing, Scotland Act 2010. I just wondered if you could comment on that point because I think it's an important position that Police Scotland has put forward to us, particularly Professor. I can't really speak for Police Scotland, I mean all I would say, as we have pointed out, they did also say in their evidence that if the act was taken away nothing would really change, they would simply use other provisions of the law. It may be that it's an important tool in communicating that certain types of behaviour are unacceptable, albeit that they are covered by other parts of the law, but that's not really my area of expertise. I must confess that there's not much I can usefully add in regard to or with regard rather to section six. Unlike section one, it is not a special capacity offence, so it does apply across the board. I take on board what Police Scotland is saying about it being another useful tool in the armory in dealing with what seems to be online abuse, but, as previously stated, society would very much take the view that there are existing provisions in place, and it is worthy of some note that I think it was last year, I think it was 51. I think it's fair to say that there's been a low number. For reasons that I must say that I'm unaware of, but it does seem that there has been a relatively low number of prosecutions under section six of the 2012 act. I guess that, from an objective perspective, I was curious whether, from a theoretical position, you saw value in what the police have said that this is a useful tool. I know that that's quite a conceptual question, but given that you're a professor of criminal law, I thought that it might be an interesting one to touch on, but I appreciate what you've said already. I don't know what reason they gave for why they saw value in it, given that the behaviour would be covered by other criminal law provisions. It would be fair to say that section six allows for prosecution and indictment, and one of the offences that we've referred to in our written submission is that, as Mr Zillow referred to earlier, the section 127 offence of improper use of a public and electronic communications network can only be tried summarily, whereas what you have in section six is the ability to prosecute on indictment if it's so serious. My question is actually fallen on from Liam McArthur, but is it a slightly different twist on if you like and it's more in terms of accessibility? I'd just like to start by welcoming the SFA and the SPFL's commitment to looking at accessibility through my recently established cross-party group. One of the things that's run through that all the panellists here have said is about football fans feeling singled out, but the reverse of that is some of the strong evidences that Liam McArthur touched on that we've heard from Stonewall Scotland, the Scottish Women's Convention, the Scottish Disability Supporters Association, among others, that actually this law is making them feel safer, their members feel safer about going to football games. So I suppose my question is, is there any concern that if the act is repealed, then actually in a way we've made the game less accessible to these protective groups, given the evidence that they're suggesting? I just want to know your views on that. I think perception is not reality and I think it's important for the hate crime review to actually consider some of the softer issues as well as some of the gaps perhaps that have been identified as a result of these evidence sessions. None of us would want to get to a position where fans don't feel safe, but clearly if part of this act is not being used, if the police themselves are challenging the ability for it to be implemented, then I think it does need addressing. So I believe that perhaps the way to deal with that is to let the hate crime review play out and let's see what comes of that and then decide whether or not the act can be repealed. Well actually that's a really interesting answer because that was going to be my further question, convener. It was in relation to the Bracadale review, so you've answered that as well, thanks. Is there anybody else? Exactly following on from Fulton's point there, it was about the Lord Bracadale review because I understand a few of you expressed your opinions on that as well. I'd just be looking for Desmond and Neil if you had an opinion on that as well and whether or not we should wait until the result of the Bracadale review comes through. I think I'd be loath to offer any advice in terms of timing to people who understand the criminal law a lot better than I do and certainly we will continue to engage with Lord Bracadale with him once already. I will continue to engage with him and to do what we can to support his work. I think that we should wait for the Bracadale review. I understand from the other faith groups this morning that they feel that the hate crime legislation et cetera would be better and beneficial for the assessment that we carried out under that umbrella, but I think that it should be looked at succinctly with two separate entities, this bill and Lord Bracadale, just because the Glasgow Bar Association and other members come before the committee and say that we wish to submit this act should be repealed. It doesn't mean to say that we don't support any other acts of statutory instruments that the Government wants to lay forward if it relates to hate crime under Lord Bracadale's review. I think that there are two separate entities that should be looked at. I would agree with your point. I think that there are two separate entities in a way, but I still think that this is still going to be impacted by that review. To me, it would make sense that, once we have the results of that review, that would be the time to consider it since that will play a part in it. I accept your proposition and many other panel members have come before the committee and said the same thing. I accept that, but I still think that when you are looking at it from a legal perspective with regard to what is happening in the sheriff courts around Scotland, with regard to section 1 and the contentious issues that have gone on for the past six years—sorry, five years in relation to this act—and the lack of use of section 6, I still go back to where we were at the beginning, that there is no gap in the existing legislation that protects people. As the professor has already correctly and succinctly narrated, there are the aggravations that are there that presiding sheriffs at first instance cases, consentence, accused persons if they are found guilty or plead guilty to offences under section 38.1, or breach of the peace with a racial aggravation or sectarian aggravation, incentives them along with the substantive offence, and it is recorded in their criminal convictions as a breach of the peace section 38 with the specific aggravator. So, hate crime is being prosecuted. I think that one of the gentlemen, Mr McPherson, might be a point that is making there, and I am sorry to diverse, but with regard to where persons feel as if they cannot go to the football, legislations are already there through common law powers and legislation to protect persons going to the football. It is a shame that people might feel that they cannot go to football for a variety of reasons because they think that this act, if it is repealed, would stop them going and there would be no protection, but there is protection under the existing legislation that maybe that is an issue that these organisations and groups would have with the police service of Scotland, as to why they are not maybe implementing those charges and making the public feel safer by going for these specific groups. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I address this to Mr McReady, please? Mr McReady, could you elaborate on the law society's written evidence, which suggests that the confusion has arisen? With regard to what is considered offensive or unacceptable behaviour with regard to section 1? I think that society has taken a particular issue with section 1 to E of the act in that it defines behaviour among the references given at A to D. E defines behaviour as other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive. In terms of the act itself, there is no definition and the courts have expressed, as I understand, some concern around the lack of definition of what behaviour in terms of 1 to E would constitute offensive behaviour for the purposes of this offence at section 1. It seems to have been put in place. It is my reading of the act that there seems to have been put in place a safeguard at section 1. I do beg your pardon. The safeguard is either it will be incited to public disorder or would persons likely to be incited to public disorder. I think that I come back to section 1. It may be something of an issue because one might have an offence in the abstract is that the offence of behaviour took place, but what must be disregarded is the fact that measures are there, such as segregation at a football match at a football stadium, or that the people who would be likely to be incited to public disorder are not present, so there is just simply nobody there to be offended by the behaviour. I appreciate the behaviour or offensive behaviour that is set out at 1 to E, but I think that particular reference has to be made to 1 to E, which seems to be something of a catch-all, but it is other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive. So you would like to see some clarity? There could be some clarity. Might I add that, standing whether the act is repealed or otherwise, there is provision at section 5 of the act for Scottish ministers, so that is a fix that would not necessarily need a primary legislation, but at section 5 of the act, there is power for Scottish ministers to amend both sections 1 and 4 by order. I have a couple of questions for Mr Reagan and Mr Doncaster. I wonder if you could both give us some detail about how the relationships between supporters and clubs has changed since the introduction of the act. I think that you would get a much more detailed answer if you spoke directly to the clubs, and perhaps the clubs themselves would be delighted to welcome any member of the committee to visit and see the work that they do. I believe that the relationship through the introduction of the SLO, the supporter liaison officer, has improved the working relationship, and that has provided, as I said earlier, a bridge between the club and the supporters' groups. Key topics are discussed, particularly topics that are of concern to supporters, and that does not just cover unacceptable conduct, but that covers a whole range of issues. So I think that fans have certainly got more of a voice. The relationship that we ourselves have developed with supporters direct Scotland has allowed us to carry out things like the national football survey, for example, and to also provide an opportunity to hear back from the supporters' organisation. I think that there has been an improvement in that relationship over time. I think that the relationship between clubs generally and supporters direct Scotland, and that is largely due to the excellent work that supporters direct Scotland are carrying out. I think that there is no doubt that, as a result of the act, some fans' groups feel demonised, but I do not think that that does not really go towards the relationship between them and their club. I think that the relationship between supporters and their clubs remains extremely strong, but I do feel that the effect of the act is that a number of fans do feel demonised. Would you say that there is still a problem with offensive behaviour at football? Has that lessened any since introduction of the act? I think that we, with the work that I talked about earlier, are monitoring all aspects of unacceptable conduct, and clearly that does include acts that are criminal within the law. We look at all of the unacceptable conduct that takes place across all of the games of the 42 clubs within the SPFL, and we monitor that very carefully through the delegates, particularly at the top end. We are doing that monitoring at present. We are sharing the results with Government, and we will continue to do that. Mr Regan, do you have a view? I think that, certainly, there are examples where the act is being used. I read in the national policing strategy for Scotland that has just been published that 52 per cent of the cases where the act was used came from three football matches in the last 12 months. There are examples where the act has been used. The question, I think, is that our football fans have been unfairly singled out. Secondly, does other existing legislation provide cover for dealing with unacceptable conduct? I think that we have heard from a number of experts in this field much more so than myself that there is provision elsewhere, and therefore, as long as there are no gaps—which is where the hate crime review could come in—there may be an opportunity for the committee to consider the next step. Would you say then that football fans are unfairly singled out? I think that, certainly, when you look at the survey, and as I said earlier, 71 per cent of 13,000 people believe that the act is not working. The consultation that we have had suggests that fans do feel demonised, as Neil said earlier. They do feel that they are being singled out because of this being the national sport. There is no other legislation that focuses on a single sport. There is no other legislation that focuses on other societal areas, such as arts and culture and music, for example. The law generally picks up everything else. I noticed from your written submission that you make reference to the private members bill, being proposed on strict liability, as well as the Brecon Deal report. You say that that is only served to add to the confusion among supporters and to heighten anxiety that they are unfairly discriminated against. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on that? Just that, I think that the whole topic of behaviour has been focused on in lots of different areas. We are all of the mind and were of the mind back in 2011 that we did not want to see behaviour worsen and we wanted to do something to address it, which is why, at the time, we were very supportive of the direction of travel of this particular bill. Over time, the topic of strict liability has been thrown into the pool and has created a little bit of confusion. Many people do not fully understand the term strict liability and what it means. Secondly, the Brecon Deal review of hate crime, which tiptoe into the area of football-related and acceptable conducts. You have three key areas, all of which are focused in some way on football. You can imagine the reaction of the football fan, which is, why is this about football? Why cannot society and unacceptable conduct be addressed by standard legislation? I suppose that part of the argument is that the clubs are already, as you have said today, and they have outlined very clearly doing a lot with supporters to improve behaviour and working on their various activities going on, so perhaps there is not an equal discussion on that aspect of it. Thank you. I have one very brief follow-up question. I will move on to my question to Professor Leverick. We have talked a lot in these evidence sessions about the importance of education and how education is key to tackling some of the behaviours around football. Both of you will be aware of the Equality Network sports charter that a number of professional clubs have signed up to. That is to promote inclusion across the LGBTI community, and it has had a varying range of successes. It has a trickle-down effect because it works with young people in the clubs as supporters, and it changes the whole ethos in the club. Do you see something similar to that having a really beneficial effect in tackling sectarianism and offensive behaviour? We are proud to be signatories to that charter. We think that it is a very positive step. We know that a number of our member clubs have done the same. I do believe that the clubs generally carry out a huge amount of very positive work in their communities. I talked earlier about follow-up with pride and boys against bigotry, which are just two examples of the work that clubs are carrying out in this area to educate and improve society. The Scottish FFA has recently appointed an equality and diversity manager. We have been nominated for the Scottish Diversity Award recently, and we are being held up by FIFA for best practice in the area of equality and diversity. We have also signed up to the charter. We are doing some fantastic work in the area of LGBT with para football, with the Girls and Women's Game and so on and so forth. We are very proactive in this area. As far as unacceptable behaviour is concerned, I mentioned earlier the relationship that we have with the clubs but also with the likes of Sure Racism and the Red Card. We also are big supporters of Positive Coaching Scotland, which is an initiative that has been driven through the Winning Scotland Foundation. It has now been embedded into our co-education programmes, so we are trying to start at the grass-roots level in reinforcing the right behaviours at the outset and permeating through grass-roots as children get older. Professor Leverick, can you perhaps give us some detail around approaches that are taken in other jurisdictions in relation to sectarian and offensive behaviour? I know that you spoke about what goes on in England and Wales, but in the wider sense, is there any other country that has the same specific legislation that targets one specific group of people? If so, what impact has that had? Yes, I am happy to answer that. The simple answer to the question is no. There is not as far as we can tell. I do not want to give a definitive no because our review focused mainly on materials in the English language. I would not want to absolutely promise that there is not something out there in Serbia nor something that we have missed, but our review showed that there is not anything that specifically targets football supporters in this way that we could find at all. Probably the closest thing to it, I have already mentioned the English legislation, is that, apart from that, the closest thing to it is that in Northern Ireland there is the Justice Act 2011 in Northern Ireland, and that prohibits various types of chanting at sporting fixtures, of which sectarian chanting is one of the things that it prohibits along with various other types of chanting, racist chanting and other types of offensive chanting. It does not confine that to football though. It covers football and I think rugby union, I think Gaelic games as well, so it is not specifically football focused. Aside from that, we really could not find anything else worldwide that is as narrowly focused as the act in Scotland. You do have legislation worldwide that targets either sporting events generally or large public events generally and has public order or hate crime offences around that, but certainly nothing that targets football specifically, aside from the English legislation. Are you aware if there have been any difficulties in implementing the legislation in England? You know that there has been confusion around the legislation here. Is there anything similar in England? The legislation in England is much, much more straightforward. It is very narrowly targeted at chanting at football matches and racist chanting or what they term indecent chanting. It has a much narrower focus than the Scottish legislation has. It also has a much lower maximum penalty from memory. I think that you cannot be imprisoned for breaching the English legislation. I think that the maximum penalty is fine, but what the English legislation does not have is a link to public disorder. It just prohibits racist and indecent chanting. No add-ons. In that sense, it is much, much narrower than the Scottish legislation. As far as I can tell from my review, there have not been any problems in implementing that. It seems to have been successful in cutting out racist chanting, although that might have happened anyway. It is hard to pin it to the act. It probably has not been that successful in cutting out indecent chanting. I think that a lot of that still goes on in English football grounds, but the racist chanting is pretty much gone now. Panel members, sectarianism is not defined within Scots law, if you will probably know. Is it a barrier to tackling what is perceived to be sectarian behaviour? Mr Greedy, can you kick that one off? Sectarianism is not defined. I suspect that that may cause some issues as to how to specifically criminalise the offence of sectarianism. It has always been my understanding that it is incitement to hatred of a religious group for whatever reason. I know that that is something that is in section 1.2 of the act, or that it does not have to be a religious group, a social group or a cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation. However, that is certainly to define sectarianism. I suspect that that would indeed be problematic. I do not really have anything to add to that. The act does not specifically refer to sectarianism at all. It is not part of the terms of the act, but the act has still been used to tackle what most people would perceive as chanting in sectarian songs. The fact that sectarianism not only is not defined but is not even in the act has not stopped it from being used to prosecute what most people would regard as sectarian conduct. I think that it has been a false memorandum to tackle sectarianism, but he has not mentioned that. It is true, but the act itself does not use the term sectarian at all. I accept that it was the purpose of the act, but I think that that maybe answers the question that, despite sectarianism not being defined or even being part of the text of the act, it has nonetheless been used to tackle sectarian behaviour and confusion. I do not really have a view on behalf of the Association as to whether or not there should be a definition. I noted that the police service of Scotland noted one of the additional difficulties in their submissions to this committee. There was no clear definition, but over 10, 15, 20 years, there have been definitions by the court or cases that have gone before the courts and the pellet courts with regard to certain words, banners or fences that have been classified as sectarian. Clearly, there is a case of body already existing there. Again, the existing legislation in common appears to be used to prosecute certain offences and diagnose them as sectarian. Can I ask a supplementary question to Mr Reagan and Mr Donkratz? Mr Reagan and Mr Donkratz, you can answer this question. One of the issues that has arisen in evidence is when a large number of fans engage in offensive behaviour, which, given the disparity of numbers between the police and fans, cannot be tackled at that time. How are the SFA and SPFL ensuring that clubs take action as appropriate? We amended our rules in the summer and the amendment put a specific obligation on clubs, which is referred to in the guidelines of travel. Of course, I share with members the specific requirement on clubs to deal with unacceptable conduct after it has occurred. We accept that, at the moment, when there may be public order reasons why behaviour cannot be tackled at that time, none the less it should be tackled appropriately after the event and appropriate efforts are being made to identify people who are responsible and to take them to task accordingly. You are working with the clubs to do that? Absolutely. I have nothing to add other than to say that the Scottish SFA rules mirror those of the SPFL and the members are the same members. Therefore, we deal with those clubs in exactly the same way. If something happens, after the event, clubs are expected to take action to identify perpetrators, use CCTV, remove season tickets if necessary, and so on. You follow up on that, do you? Yes. Right. Tray Liam Kerr. Very briefly, just for clarity, that presumably only applies where the behaviour takes place within the confines of the ground. That would not apply outside the ground, where, as I understand it, a lot of the behaviour takes place. You are correct. That is the matter of view. We are a member's organisation, and we govern our members, and clearly they are responsible for what happens within their ground. What happens elsewhere is clearly a police matter, and that is out with our jurisdiction. That concludes the committee's questions. Clear. Do you have any questions that you want to put to the panel? Thank you, convener. Just a brief question. Looking at the Law Society briefing for today, there were a couple of points under 3 and section 4, where you talk about, if the act is not repealed, we would like to see more cases in the appeals courts. That is referred to a couple of times. Because of recognition, it is need to clarify the act and the reach of the act. If you want to expand a bit more on that situation— Of course. I suspect that that goes to the point that I made earlier about interpretation, particularly section 1. I mentioned earlier the catch-all provision that is 1 to E. It may be subject to further judicial interpretation and other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive. A point that the society made at bill stage back in 2011 and continued to make was also that the very wide, because it is a threefold offence, the behaviour has to take place. It is either likely to incite public disorder or, as I said, the abstract of would be likely to incite public disorder, but for the fact that no one is there, and also that it has to take place in relation to a regulated football match. Comments have been made by the society on the definition of regulated football match, and that is where it becomes very much a special capacity offence, because it has to take place in relation to a regulated football match. That is the fine that gives you the section 55.2 definition of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2006. I appreciate that there has not—or as I understand or qualify that—that there has not been any judicial interpretation on a regulated football match. For instance, as I understand, that would not cover for instance the Scottish Junior Football Association. That would not cover their games, which take place in Scotland. It would not cover a football match between two foreign countries that was taking or clubs from foreign countries such as when Hamden Park has held the European Cup final, the Champions League final and the UEFA Cup finals. It would not cover those types of matches. Also, the point that the society has made before about the journey to and from the game or the match, rather, a regulated football match, which has not, as I understand, been subject of any interpretation, because section 22 is very, very widely drawn. Concern has also been expressed around televised football matches. There is no indication as to whether a football match has to be a live football match, whether or not it can be recorded highlights of a football match, or a regulated football match, or whether or not it has to be—it talks about being anywhere, anywhere, in any place, other than domestic premises. It talks about television. Since 2012, of course, we have more and more people using mobile telephones to watch football matches or iPads or tablets and the like. Those are issues that I would contend have not been—perhaps because the case logist has not been built up—but they are certainly difficulties with the act, as drafted at present, that the courts may have such an issue in interpretation. I suppose that whatever you describe what that means for people who are being prosecuted or pursued through the act, what does it mean for people who are there to represent them? I think that society will always strive for, in terms of law reform, always striving for clarity and certainty in the law. One could conceivably have a situation where, if it is not—and I appreciate that and I certainly do not seek to minimise the issues that have been referred to by previous speakers around offensive behaviour within football stadia in Scotland, but one could have an example of someone in a pub watching a series of football matches on a Sunday, and one match may be an English premiership match between, for instance, the Man City Arsenal game at the weekend. That is clearly not a regulated football match for the purposes of this legislation, whereas another match that may be shown or watched in the same pub on the same day involves two Scottish clubs, and the other game on Sunday, I guess, would have been the Hartscoll-Mariner game at Murrayfield. Clearly, that is a regulated football match, so the offence can take place when people are in a pub watching one game but not another. Just before we finish it, it would be good to get a view from the panel members and the SFA submission. There were concerns about enforceability before the legislation was introduced. Those are still to the forward, the same concerns after the legislation has been introduced. The Glasgow Bar Association again goes back to the definition of the act failing to properly define the behaviour element of the offence. I can ask you generally, do you think that the act has been effective in deterring offensive behaviour per se? It is difficult to say. I think that the statistics will speak for themselves whether the crime statistics by note have been proffered by the Crown and the police service of Scotland only relate to the 2012 act. I note from the minutes that they were not providing the committee with other offences as common law breaches of the peace offences section 38, which has been used widely, which is unfortunate because I think that we are only really assessing the 2012 act, but I think that you have to look at the broader picture with regard to the other offences outwith the stadia. What other offences have been charged within the stadia? Was it just the 2012 act? I know that it is another tool, but if police officers are interchanging the offences, it would be good to know those offences so that we can take a broader view of all the figures. It might mean that breaches of the peace have gone down the views of the act instead. There could be a number of breaches of the peace charges section 38 offences with the various aggravations that we do not know about to compare and contrast from previous years, and that might be something that the committee may wish to analyse over. It would make it more sense that if we have all the figures and then we can say that it has gone down, it has gone up, but, yes, clearly, the police officers are using this because the statistics are there. I think that we need more information. I am not sure if there is much that I can usefully add to that other than that we note the figures that are being kept around prosecutions. I think that it was 377 last year, and I think that references have been made to being one high-profile game, I can think of being the 2016 Scottish Cup final, but it may be that concern has to be around the level of charges being profiled with regard to the 2012 act, both section 1 and, even more so, section 6, where I think that it was 51 offences prosecuted under section 6 of the act. If the question is, has it been effective? I don't have a personal experience of that, but I would point to the official evaluation of the act that was undertaken by Neil Hamilton Smith and some other colleagues. I think that people referred to that in a previous evidence session, referred to that, and the conclusion of that evaluation was that there certainly had been a reduction in offensive chanting in football grounds since the act has come into force, but it was simply impossible to tell whether it was because of the act. That is a conundrum. I don't think you are ever going to solve it. There are so many other factors that could have affected that, such as changes in social attitude, changing policing strategies and so on, so trying to attribute improvements to the act is always going to be very, very difficult. I don't have a view from a legal perspective on how effective the act has been. What I would say is that 71 per cent of football fans don't think that it's been effective, and I also think that the relationships have been damaged between fans and the various stakeholders because of the act and the fact that football feels as if it's been singled out. On that basis, there are clearly issues there that need to be tackled. Mr Donkett has nothing I can use for me now. On that note, I thank all the panellists very much for what has been an excellent evidence session. We now move into private session. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 14 November, when we will continue our consideration of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Civil Litigation Bill. Y Llywodraeth Cymru