 Welcome to the Justice Committee's 30th meeting of 2017. Agenda item number one is a decision on taking item six in private, which is consideration of other witnesses who are stage one scrutiny of the offensive behaviour of football in threatening communications review Scotland. Are we all agreed to take this item upriding? Agenda item number two is subordinate legislation and consideration of the affirmative instrument on legal aid Scotland act 1986 amendment regulations 2017 draft and I welcome Annabelle Ewing minister for community safety and legal affairs and her officials Eileen Grimmer civil law legal system division gainer Davenport director of housing and social justice and Sadiw Asruth director of legal services. I remind members that the officials are permitted to give evidence under this item but may not participate in the debate on the instrument under agenda item number three and I refer members to paper one which is a note by the clerk and invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you and good morning convener and I'm pleased to be here today to present the regulations that make provision for legal aid in certain circumstances to be available in the first tier tribunal housing and property chamber. Regulations are needed to ensure that civil legal aid will continue to be made available when the functions and jurisdiction of the sheriff court in civil cases relating to tenancy related disputes in the private rented sector transfer to the first tier tribunal housing and property chamber in 1 December 2017. The regulations will also allow for civil legal aid to be available for disputes in relation to the new private residential tenancies provided for under the private housing tenancies Scotland act 2016 which also comes into force on 1 December of this year. The first tier tribunal housing and property chamber has a less adversarial approach where legal representation will not be the norm. However, given that in the cases being transferred from the sheriff court eviction is a possible outcome, it was considered important to maintain the status quo as far as the availability of legal aid is concerned. It should also be noted that the regulations before the committee today do not involve any changes to the eligibility criteria. The regulations provide for consequential transfer of all existing legal aid provisions except for applications by landlords in relation to the appeal of landlord registration matters under the Anti-Social Behaviour Scotland Act 2004. It should be noted here that the policy objective is to develop landlord registration and letting agent registration in parallel and, moreover, to mirror in that regard existing procedures for property factors in the first tier tribunal property and housing chamber. No legal aid is available for property factors regarding these matters. No legal aid is to be available for the new letting agents regime and hence in the interests of parity of treatment. It is not proposed that legal aid be available for such landlord registration matters in that there should not be any difference in treatment for such matters. Even assuming that it is less likely that eligibility conditions would be met for such applications, it is, as I say, not proposed that legal aid would be available for those particular matters. I am happy to answer any questions. Before we move to questions, there are two declarations of interest. Thank you, convener. I just wish to declare my interests as a landlord in the private rented sector, a member of the Scottish Association of Landlords and a Solicitor with current practice and certificates from the Lost Societies of Scotland and England and Wales. Remain the committee that I am registered on the role of Scottish Solicitors. Are there any questions for the minister from members? There are no questions. We now move to a formal consideration of the motion in relation to the affirmative instrument, the delegated powers and law reform committee has considered and reported on this instrument and has no comment on it. The motion is 08085 that the Justice Committee recommends that the Legal Aid Scotland Act 1986 amendment regulations 2017 draft be approved. Will the minister move the motion? I put the question that we are all agreed. That concludes consideration of the affirmative instrument. The committee's report will note and confirm the outcome of this debate. We are all agreed, and is the committee content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final draft of the report? I thank the minister and the officials for attending and I suspend briefly to allow the minister and the officials to leave. The instrument is the civil legal aid Scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2017 SSI 2017 oblique 310. I refer members to paper 2, which is not by the clerk. Do members have any comments or questions about this SSI? No comments or recommendations, therefore, is the committee agreed? It does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument. We now move to agenda item number five, which is our second evidence session on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeals Scotland Bill. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 5, which is a spice paper. Welcome when he comes, which should be shortly. James Kelly will be attending as the member in charge of the bill. I welcome Danny Boyle, parliamentary and policy officer, Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland Beamish, Tom Halpin, chief executive, safeguarding communities, reducing offending sacro, Sandy Rear, vice chairman, Scottish Disabled Supporters Association and Colin McFarlane, director of Stonewall Scotland. I thank all the witnesses who have supplied the written evidence fund. It is particularly helpful and very detailed in some of the responses. We will move to questions. If I could start off by asking the various panel members if they are in favour or against repeal and why they hold that view, who would like to start? I do not mind going first. Good morning, convener. Good morning, members. Thank you very much for having us along this morning to discuss this very serious piece of legislation and the general issues and social concepts that surround it with regards to hate crime and equality in human rights. As a direct answer, do we support the repeal of the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications act? Yes, we do. The reason we support the repeal of that particular piece of legislation is that we are not convinced that it appropriately or effectively tackles hate crime in Scotland, so if the committee will allow, I will give a very brief overview of why we have that rationale. In 2016-17, there were 3,349 racially aggravated charges in Scotland. Over the lifetime of the act between 2012-17, there have been more than 20,000. Over the duration of the act from 2012-17, there have been a total of 64 racially aggravated charges under the act. The predominant hate crime charge under the act has been for religious aggravation and the predominant characteristic within the religious aggravation is anti-Catholic over 75 per cent of charges in every reporting year. That being said, in relation to the volume of attendees at Scottish football matches, hate crime charges under the act actually account for less than 50 per cent of all charges in every year of reporting. Indeed, the year the act was used most often in 2016-17 constituting 377 charges, only 18 per cent of those were for hate crimes. We support generally a policy of mainstreaming and coherence that strives to ensure a remedy for those who face hate crime on a daily basis in Scotland. That act does not achieve it. It creates a disproportionate focus on one section of society when the overwhelming majority of hate crime is taking place somewhere else. It is also misleading to promote this act as primarily a piece of hate crime legislation. It deals mostly with threatening behaviour, fighting or threats to fight, so it is reclassified section 74, Breach of the Peace. That is a laudable aim, but it is not a hate crime charge. We are additionally concerned that the breadth of the law may create restrictions and freedom of expression and equality for all, specifically section 12e of the act covering other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive. From a minority community's perspective, that poses challenges. Some of the communities that we work with are not always part of the dominant social narrative. When it comes to contested social issues, where there can exist two valid, if opposed opinions, that can create real problems. We have been aware of some of the broader discussion that the act should be extended out to other sections of society. Again, that is something that we are slightly concerned with in relation to the Race Equality Framework for Scotland, which was launched in March 2016. There was a recognition within the Race Equality Framework for Scotland that we have to have a much more broader conversation about the role of the transatlantic slave trade in Scotland, about Scotland's co-participation in colonial endeavours in the empire and how that is now manifested within social issues that can affect communities in Scotland today. Applying section 12e in a much more broader context to contested social issues could potentially pose much larger problems for minority community views. For those very reasons, and we look forward to extending that discussion with members today, we support the repeal of the legislation. Before I move on to the other panel members, I wonder if you could comment on the policy memorandum that you highlighted and the acknowledgement about sectarianism. You have some written evidence on that, which I found quite interesting. It being a social concept, as opposed to having no legal characteristic in slot slot. The general point is that the whole concept of sectarianism remains a contested social issue. We have had recommendations from Dr Duncan Morrow's independent advisory group, and what a definition of sectarianism should take. However, our general argument is that that has to happen independent of the judiciary as a first point of call, because it remains a contested term. Hate crime, where hate crime occurs, where it is anti-cathletic, anti-producing, anti-Semitic, islamophobic, is quite clear. However, the general jargon, particularly in relation to the whole contested concept of sectarianism, has been caught up in section 1, 2e of the act. Things that are not necessarily sectarian from our perspective are being called sectarian, and that is clouding the broader narrative around what the act sets out to achieve and what its purpose is. Tested in having no legal character in ScotSlaw, and therefore it is almost like it is based on a false premise. That is what I read from your submission. Is that more or less what you meant to say in that? The policy memorandum that supports the Offensive Behavior Act acknowledges that sectarianism, as a word, has no legal concept in ScotSlaw. That is part of the problem, as you say it with the act. That debate has to happen independent of what has been taken through the courts, and social and political issues have to be debated independent of catch-all legislation. In terms of sacro, right from the outset, I endorse the intention of the act in terms of hate crime and prejudice, so anything that I say about repeal in no way detracts from the reprehensible issue that that is. However, working on the ground with people who are arrested or reported for that crime, I have some learning from that, and it is more around the sectarianism element of it. Sacro operates a project that tackles offending prejudices in which we receive referrals from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We also work with people who have been in community payback orders for other offences but have exhibited those attitudes. It is a cognitive behaviour therapy programme that is getting into attitudes and belief systems. The reality is that, in the year that we have talked about where there are more cases in 2016-17, that project received 26 referrals in Scotland. There is an inconsistency about how the act is being applied in terms of the numbers coming through. Of those 26, seven cases, including what would be determined as sectarianism, one of them is sectarianism and homophobia. Of those seven, three came through the act so that, right away, you know that the legislation beyond the act is actually taking into account those behaviours. You then look at the specific application of legislation around one group in society—football—and you look at the backgrounds of people who attend to that and the disadvantage for so many people, etc. You apply stigmatisation in there, too, when you specifically look at an act for one group like that. When I put my own submission together, I was trying to balance that out—why would you legislate against a behaviour, etc. For me, it has to be a case so compelling that it must be legislated for. When you look at those four cases within the seven, who were not dealt with under that act, how compelling is that? If you look at one group in society, I understand that the broader prejudices are represented here in discussions. That is a bigger discussion, but I am talking about the act in relation to that area, which is bringing quite controversial views at the moment. On balance, in SACRO at the start of our journey supported the bill. There are lots of principles that support the bill, but on balance, we would say that the broader legislation is available. Given fixed penalty tickets to people who—in the age groups, if you look at those 26, there is a pretty balance when you go from 20 through to 50. It is not just a young person or a middle-aged person. If you look at that group as a sample, it is a broad age range. If you simply give a fixed penalty ticket to someone who is chanting something that they would say that their uncles and their father did in the past and they do not understand it, you send someone away who has not changed their attitude. They may be even angry because they have just lost some of the money that they have not got a lot of in the first place. On the last fixed penalty ticket, are you talking about the transitional arrangements and when they would come in or more general? Yes, exactly. Part of Mr Bisham is that that should not happen. When you look at it, unless you are looking at the behaviours and working with the behaviours that underlie it and the belief systems, you are not going to change that. At the low level of referrals in show that at the moment there is an inconsistency in its application. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today. Stonewall Scotland supports the principles of the act. We supported that when the act was going through the process through Parliament 2011-12. Our view is that it sends a very clear message that abusive behaviour at football is not acceptable. We know from our research that there is a clear issue around LGBT people and their fear of attending football matches. We know that 60 per cent of sports fans in Scotland have witnessed anti-LGBT language for abuse in a sports setting in the last five years and of that 82 per cent of Scottish fans have witnessed that behaviour in a football setting. LGBT people tell us that that is one area of sport that they do not feel safe or secure, whether that is from chanting, whether that is from comments that are made on the stands. Our view very much was that the act at the time was going to send a very clear message that that kind of behaviour was not acceptable. Our view that repealing the act without other measures in place could undermine work that has been made by organisations like Stonewall, the Equality Network, Football Clubs, Police Scotland and the Criminal Justice Agencies to increase LGBT people's confidence that only reporting hate crime but also in attending sporting events like football. We would agree that there are implementation issues, one of the things that we have said to NASA mission that the act has been in place for five years. It is probably time for a review to look at what is working and what is not working. Obviously, Lord Bracadale is taking out his review of hate crime legislation at the moment and our view would be that nothing should happen until that hate crime review has reported back. That would be the good time to look at what needs to be done, whether the act needs to go, what reform needs to be done in the act if it is going to stay and looking at hate crime legislation in the round. Repealing the act without anything in place we think would be damaging, would send a very negative signal to LGBT people. Our view in particular is that most LGBT people will not be watching this today, they will not be poring through the official report, they will not be looking at the intricacies of the different elements of the act, but what they will see is a headline that says that the act that protects them potentially at football matches has gone, and that would then lead to a lack of confidence. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. I am very new at this, so please think if I am unprepared that that is probably the right area because we came into this very late. The Scottish Disabled Supporters Association is a very young organisation that is formed out of the back of UEFA, and I look after all the clubs and bits and pieces in Scotland. I agree with the rest of the team that we cannot have nothing at all because there are elements that are not just across the board that people do not care. Sometimes there is a case, and they do not realise how it affects people with disability, how they can take chance in songs and speech. It is right across the board whether you are in a wheelchair, whether you are in a disabled, autistic or with learning difficulties, and a lot of people forget that that has a different effect to somebody with a normal ability. To get rid of the legislation completely is wrong, but I still think that there needs to be something put in place or kept in place for the future. If something else was in place, you might be in favour of repeal, or are you against repeal per se? I am against the repeal, but unless there is something in place that is reviewed or updated. Is it not perfect? Is that what you would like to be looked at again and reviewed? Despite differing views, probably everyone would agree that there is offensive behaviour that takes place generally and at football. Is it a problem that could be dealt with by the clubs? Mr Riex said that he thinks that something needs to replace the act if it is repealed. Can I ask the views of the other members of the panel on that, because there would clearly be a gap left if the act was repealed? I think that it is a problem that is broader than just the clubs. There is offensive behaviour and criminal behaviour on many occasions. There is broader legislation that is available in terms of aggravations and hate crime legislation. I am not a lawyer, so I would have to defer to others to give you the specific act. However, our referral shows that people are being charged with offences under that other legislation and are being able to be referred into initiatives like our own, which includes outreach in terms of education. It is not just about the 26 people that we work with and direct. We could work with more, but we have people trained across Scotland in other initiatives like that. However, the idea that someone whose behaviour is so embedded and so offensive that the clubs are going to change them by taking away their season ticket or whatever, does not tackle the hatred that is in there. It has to be broader than the clubs that you are making. By extension, that would mean that you think that there would be a gap if it was repealed. There has to be something else. The point that I did make was that the cases that were referred to us, four out of seven, did not come through that legislation. There is other legislation there, and I believe that if that was applied appropriately, it would cover that gap. I will cover briefly what is criminalised by the act and then touch on what is probably the most pertinent point, where we are going to go from here and what we are going to do next. As I said in my introductory comments, the act primarily reclassified the breach of the pieces of threatening behaviour, so 60 per cent of the charges over the lifetime of the actor for this category. In the words of the Crown Office, the charges classified as threatening where they accused threatened another person or people involved the accused acting in a disorderly or aggressive manner, making threats or challenging others to fight or where they engaged in fighting, so a laudable criminal justice aim to prevent. We can see this from the majority of the charges being in relation to a single game, the Scottish Cup final in 2016-17. In short, it is covering serious issues with regard to public order. It is unclear then to be miss why these issues are collated and being portrayed as being in relation to hate crime. We already suffer from a lack of clarity as to the locus motivation, ethnicity or other characteristics of those who are victims of hate crime. The dissemination of stats in relation to the offensive behaviour act further clouds this ambiguity and does not offer us any illumination to the extent or not of hate crime issues in Scotland. As we previously touched on what it does cover, some instances of hate crime as of outlined constitutes less than 50 per cent of all charges in each year of reporting and as low as 18 per cent in 2016-17. The vast majority has been touched upon or anti-catholic and this reflects a broader issue that we already know that the vast majority of religiously aggravated hate crimes in Scotland are anti-catholic and have been for every year since devolution. If we had disaggregated data on the ethnicity of those who suffer racially aggravated crime, it would be incredibly helpful. That being said, any hate crime is early unacceptable and where it is anti-prottosyn, islamophobic, anti-semitic or any other protected characteristic we need to identify individually and not consume it into generic catch-all narratives. Over the whole lifetime of the act in relation to hate crime, specifically in relation to hate crime, not a reclassified breach of the peace agreement, we have had 64 race charges, six anti-semitic charges, four islamophobic charges over the five years and then within that we have had eight homophobic charges and one aggravation where disability has been the charge. All of these hate crimes are covered by pre-existing legislation. There is absolutely nothing new in the act to deal with hate crime that did not exist before 2011. As an aside point and I think this is the key point, the Bracadale review has been initiated to bring some clarity to the suite of hate crime laws and live legal instruments in Scotland. We know that the spread of these laws is confusing to the victims of hate crime in terms of getting an effective remedy, which piece of legislation did the approach. The Football Act has just enhanced this confusion as opposed to help us to deal with it. In terms of our submission to the Bracadale review, and I was discussing this, we call on the way in the door, we think that the most sensible approach would be to create a universal approach to tackling hate crime, one that is both preventative and rooted in education and one that also has a strong legal remedy when that is necessary. The most simple way that we could envisage that being taken forward would be to have a piece of hate crime legislation that reflects the characteristics in the Equality Act, which can be evolved and updated as society changes and so on and so forth. Some of the contested issues remain live within the context of the Football Act, which does not constitute hate crime and is separate. It is the reasonable offence to a reasonable person. That is a debate that has to happen outside of the legislation. We have already seen with the implementation of the legislation that it is polarised to judiciary, it is polarised to police in certain sections of football fans and, to some extent, it is polarised in the qualities organisations about the best approach to tackling hate crime. We struggle to see the value and continuing down this road and would much rather see an informed universal approach and strategy to challenging hate crime in Scotland. Just to say that some of the remarks that you made are not what we heard from the police at a previous evidence session, they are not finding it confusing. The act is an anomaly in terms of our relationship with the police. I have to be perfectly frank with you. We have an incredibly positive and proactive work in relationship with the police in every other facet of work that we do or some fantastic work that has been done by the Requality and Diversity Unit and the community police officers on the ground in terms of engaging refugees and minorities and so on and so forth, where we have had our most robust and frank conversations with Police Scotland as in relation to the implementation of the act. It does not surprise me that it is within Police Scotland's interests to maintain section 12E of the legislation, which is a defence to a reasonable person, and that power is instilled within an individual police officer on the ground who then makes an assessment of any given situation. We also feel that places individual police officers in a very precarious position. They are not anthropologists or sociologists or political commentators, so it is a very difficult piece of legislation for them to implement. It puts them immediately in a negative interaction with individual football fans, with individual members of society, and fundamentally undermines the whole concept of police and by-consent. We have a degree of sympathy for them in that context. I appreciate your view, but it is not what we have heard from the police. I just want to state that again. Mr McFarland, do you have any comment? There was a lot in what Danny McFarland was saying there, so I am trying to pick some of it. I do not agree that we are polarised. I think that we are probably coming from the same place overall, which is that we want to make sure that any of our constituents feel safe and secure when they are attending sporting events, that football or whatever. I think that I will go back to what I said earlier about the principle of the act and the message that it sends. That is the bit that we agree with. Whether the act goes or stays, we are not particularly wedded to religiously on that, but what we are saying is that if the act is to stay, we have highlighted in our evidence where we think that there are areas for improvement and some of the implementation has not gone quite right. We think particularly around LGBT reporting and recording, but if it goes and there is nothing in its place, that is our big worry. The signal that that will send to LGBT people, and as I mentioned earlier, the really good work that Police Scotland has been doing, other organisations, ourselves, the equality network, LGBT youth, our work with the Premier League, the Scottish Premier Football League and with clubs to start building the confidence of LGBT people around attending matches, being able to feel safe and secure in sporting environments, that act is quite symbolic for them because it gives them that sense that they are covered. As I mentioned earlier, they are not going to know a lot of the time, the intricacies of what legislation covers them and what does not cover them, but what they will know is that if they go to a football match and they hear homophobic chanting or somebody throws homophobic or biphobic, transphobic, abusive as an individual, that act will protect them. That is the bit that we are supportive of, the principle of the act. However, I will refer back to the Brachadale review as well, and I think that Danny is right in what he is saying, that the whole gamut of legislation is quite confusing and it probably would be better. I do not want to pre-empt what Brachadale is going to say if there was some streamlined system of what the hate crime legislation looks like. We are saying that let's wait and see what Brachadale comes back with, and then we can look at, review and move forward about whether or not the act remains and needs improved or reviewed or whether there needs to be something else in its place that covers that, but we think that the Brachadale review is going to be the good way to look at that, rather than let's not get rid of the act before Brachadale reports back, I think that that would be folly. I am struggling to get my head round this concept of the message that would be sent with repeal of this bill. I can understand why legislation in part is about sending a message of Parliament and wider societies acceptance or unacceptance of particular behaviours or whatever, but an act that we are hearing isn't delivering beyond what the gamut of legislation currently delivers, isn't sending the right message if it's convincing people it's providing protections it doesn't actually provide and that those protections would be better provided would they not be by repealing this legislation and through the Brachadale review providing through equalities legislation Mr Boyle suggested or wherever, a more effective catch-all for the sorts of protection against behaviours that we've all agreed are reprehensible. I can't understand why we want to keep in place a piece of legislation as a way of sending a message about providing protections that that legislation doesn't actually provide. You support the principles of the act but Boyle said that we're not wedded to that act, so if the act is to go or to be reviewed for us it's the implementation aspect. We have looked at where some of the implementation issues are there, we don't disagree with that but as a signal, as an LGBT fan or as an LGBT person if you know that that act exists and you know that that's going to protect you, yeah there are the bits of legislation that are there but the act itself it's the symbolic element of it but we're not wedded to whether or not the act should definitely stay or go but what we want to make sure that is currently if the act is there, the signal that that sends, if the act was to go and there was nothing in its place what does that then say but I think the Brachadale review around that is looking at elements around hate crime reporting in general. We know for example that very few LGBT people still report hate crimes, that's a confidence issue that we need to work with in terms of Police Scotland, we need to work with Pacific Society on a football area as well that's about making clubs being safer places for LGBT people too. We're not saying that the act is perfect, it's not but what we're saying is if you just blankety get rid of the act and there's nothing in its place what's signaled to that then send to LGBT people about whether they feel safe and secure in a football setting or a sports setting and that's where we have an issue with a blanket repeal straight away with nothing in its place. Back to Brachadale we think that is the point where the Brachadale review will come back with recommendations to look at those recommendations and see what Brachadale suggests and then take that further from there. I think that as somebody who's expressed concerns about the act and the support of the repeal, I'm concerned that the position that I and others in this committee in this Parliament have in relation to repeal would be construed as sending an unfortunate message to those in the LGBT community which I think this Parliament has a pretty unrivaled track record in doing much to support. But we're hearing the concerns that Mr Boyle and others have raised about the effectiveness of this act and actually the effect that it's having on the relations within the Equalities Network, between the Equalities Network individuals and the police and what not. I'm really wary about this issue about messaging. I would be interested in Mr Boyle's position on this, but the idea that if we were to repeal this, that this somehow would be sending an unfortunate message about this Parliament's support for those in the LGBT community is one that I think would find very difficult to understand or accept. It's come back on that. LGBT people tell us that that act gives them confidence that they can attend those events, that they feel that they're protected and they're safe and secure. They also tell us that if that act was to go, they don't know what then protects them. So what you would need in place then is a proper campaign, an information campaign, Scottish Government taking lead and charging that, Police Scotland taking charge and lead on that to remind LGBT people about if there is existing legislation that's there. If we're being told that the legislation isn't providing the protection that those in the LGBT community believe it is, that seems to be a problem at the moment irrespective of what we're considering at the present time. I'm very briefly hearing that and I'm entirely sympathetic to other colleagues who have concerns around about hate crime aggravations, which continue in any particular circumstance in Scotland. They would have us as an ally in challenging and taking that forward, but our precise point here in the danger of this legislation around perceptions of coverage of support and actual lived experience of the implementation of the act, the danger of this legislation and why it's unnecessary because it precisely rides on the back of tackling an actual problem of hate crime and the public consciousness which goes alongside it. As we've already said, the vast majority of charges are not for hate crimes. What also develops from this is different experiences of different characteristics in relation to different pieces of legislation. What we share in common is an aspiration to tackle and challenge hate crime across the board. What's unique potentially to the race and ethnicity and the legal definition of race within the Equality Act to this piece of legislation is that minority communities have a different experience, virtue of the fact of the new offence of section 1 to E, which criminalises general offence to a reasonable person. If I was going to try and put that from an LGBT perspective without putting words into your mouth, if there was, for example, a football team in Scotland who had a really strong LGBT identity and the LGBT community had developed a club and created it, and then they found that virtue of section 1 to E, other people in society found that insulting or offensive, and you found that your members were being criminalised virtue of it, then you would take a different view stance on it. We absolutely share the aspiration to tackle hate crime across the board, but this piece of legislation isn't actually achieving that. It's being described as—I'm surprised, actually, and we'll hope, maybe, in due course that some of the human rights advocates will be welcomed along to give evidence as well, because there's fundamental issues around about freedom of expression with regards to this piece of legislation, liberty, highly respected, described section 1 to E, breathtaking expansion of the criminal law. We would encourage the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the equality human rights commission, to additionally have something to say with regard to that. Mr Boyle, we will have it covered. I think that you spoke about partnership working with other organisations in the LGBTI community. The equality network recently published their Scottish LGBTI Hate Crime Report in 2017, and Mary Fee lodged a motion in this Parliament that received cross-party support. I note with that that it stated that there is an acknowledged concern about the existence of LGBTI discrimination in football with 66 per cent of respondents stating that they had either experienced or witnessed homophobic, biphobic or transphobic hate crime at matches when travelling to and from games or at a venue where a match was being shown. Isn't the concern that you were articulating earlier that by repealing this piece of legislation you're removing a key part of the criminal justice system in order to tackle that very fact that's been reported this year? As I said, 82 per cent of Scottish fans from our researchers showed that they've witnessed that behaviour and done so in a football setting, that's anti-LGBT language and abuse. The way I kind of look at it is sometimes it's a jigsaw puzzle. The legislative framework, the work that goes on in schools, the work that goes on in our communities, the work that organisations like ourselves do, it's all part of a jigsaw puzzle and these are different bits of that puzzle that create the final big picture. My view and Stonewall's view has been that the principle of the act has been part of that armory, if you like, about tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language, abusive behaviour, discrimination in Scottish society. Our research has shown, the equality networks research has shown, that in a football setting this is a clear issue and our belief in 2011 was that the principles of the act we supported that, we still believe in the principles of the act and that that's part of that armory of tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse, discrimination in society. If you take that away then you're taking a bit of that jigsaw puzzle away and unless there's something in its place that fills that gap then we do have that worry that things will fall through the net, that the signal it sends and you know I'll go back to what I was saying around you know the symbolism sometimes and the message it sends. These messages are so important to LGBT people, they need to know and to feel that they are safe and secure, whether that's at school, in the workplace, in their communities or whether that's attending a football match. If I can use a personal example if that's okay, if there's a committee allowing me to do that. My dad died 20 years ago and he was a huge Rangers fan and you know growing up I'm an only child, I'm in his only son you know he wanted me to go to football matches with him and you know as a teenager I was coming to terms with my own sexuality and I knew the kind of language that was used on the terraces, you could hear it on match days around eyebrows, whatever you could hear it consistently and I used every excuse possible not to tend those matches with my father because I was absolutely terrified about what I would hear and whether any of his friends that might be there might use that language and what that would mean for me is a piece of great regret for me that I wasn't able to do that thing with my dad, that I wasn't able to spend that time with him and in my view be a good son in that way. For us it's about ensuring that any LGBT kid is able to participate fully in a family environment, to go with their families to partake in sport, to go and watch their football team and to not feel worried or scared that they're going to hear or see that kind of language or see abusive behaviour. The act is that kind of element that holds that jigsaw puzzle in that way because people will feel confident that they know the act is there and I repeat they are not going to watch this committee today, they're not really going to look at the OR but what they are going to hear is a newspaper report or a news report that the act that's in its place that protects them in football matches might go and that then sends a very negative message to them that they might not feel safe or secure in a football setting. Thank you very much and for that personal reflection. Thank you very briefly supplementary and if your supplementaries could be less long-winded that would be very much appreciated. This is probably fairly brief and it's directed to Mr McLean in particular. I draw attention to section six of the bill that's before us which is commencement. The act comes into force on the day after Royal Assent. Am I hearing implicitly, if not explicitly, that the commencement, if Parliament passes this bill into law, should not be until there is a replacement regime? Sorry, I'll just to be clear and that perhaps as an alternative in a specific timetable so that it doesn't become a blank check to never doing anything if Parliament passes this. Is that what I'm hearing? In terms of the transitional arrangements, our view would be that don't repeal the act unless there's something in its place and I think what we're going back to and I keep saying so sorry is the Bracadale review is the opportunity to do that so we would say delay repeal of the act if the act is going to go delay that until Bracadale has come back and reported and the recommendations are there that's the opportunity to then look at whether or not the act should remain and be improved or whether or not if the act is to go what needs to go in its place and whether or not and again I don't want to pre-empt what Bracadale is going to say but if Bracadale comes back and says there should be a whole new suite system of how we lump our quality laws together and our hate crime laws together then that's the opportunity to look at where we take that forward. I appreciate the narrative which is a company in some of the discussion but I would just refer committee members and general public back to the the stats we have with relation to this piece of legislation as we've already said last year it was used most often 18% of the crimes were for hate crimes. Over the whole duration of the act there's been eight homophobic charges and I think assistant chief constable. I'm asking a specific question about commencement I wonder if you could address that. If you don't want to you don't have to. No I'm quite happy because it's actually totally totally pertinent to the point that I'm in the middle of making. Assistant chief constable Higgins commented in his own verbal submission that out of four million attendees at football which I'm guessing is not four million of Scottish citizens which would be quite an incredible attendance rate but four million added up over all the attendances of that 0.0005% of people attended. It's okay no because your specific was on section six and should section six should the repeal of the act go through while section six leave a major gap in the law? No I'm not asking that because self-evidently it would. I'm asking if in response to the specific points I think that LBGT people are saying that they feel protected by the intention of the act you know regardless of the legal impact do you think it would be an appropriate thing for the commencement to wait for whatever the nature of a replacement regime but also with a time limit so that it doesn't become a blank check to ignoring the plans to do that and that's a very specific question. If you don't have an answer it's perfectly entitled to say you don't have an answer. Section six in the repeal bill that you've made? In the repeal book yes yes yes understood I think I've already addressed a lot of the substance of what your question is within my previous comments and I would just refer back to them it's about perception of the bill and experience of the bill now the experience of the bill in terms of protected characteristics is also significantly broader than just one characteristic and I think that's very important to recognise and what I said within my verbal submission prior to Colin's very eloquent input was that from a race equality perspective and the legal definition of race which is broad section 12e creates very specific problems so no while there's a potential injustice via the implementation of the bill we don't support its continual implementation until back to your response given that the hate crime legislation is already sufficient. I think we've got an answer to your question. Well I'm not getting an answer. I've had a lot of latitude on supplementaries I'm moving on now to the next question Maurice Corry. Thank you. This is one for Mr Halpin. Good morning gentlemen. Do you feel that the introduction of the 2012 act has led to a change in behaviour in the context of football matches or in relation to the communities? The experience that we have is in what referrals we are getting through to us and there's no doubt that the year 1617 saw us get the most referrals that we've had and we're still in year at the moment. To say that that's changed societal behaviour and football matches I think you just need to go to football matches and observe it and I think we've a long way to go and I think it's much I think it's true to say that the act has hugely raised this in the consciousness of everyone who has any connection to football either involved in it professionally or as a supporter or whatever but our concern is that without and our experiences it can be very successful over well over 70% of the people we work with do report a real changing attitude and our reflection that is we would agree with that but if you don't work with those people in terms of the belief systems the boundaries the how do they sustain change once they've accepted change then I think unfortunately this can be a very shallow issue in Scottish society. Can I ask a supplementary question? Do you feel that that's made the experience more or less enjoyable for people you're finding this information from or experiencing? There are hugely positive outcomes and you know there are broad things about Scottish society that almost even today people don't want to confront. We had one example where one person went through the programme was happy to tell their story but the representatives of their own support system realised that they were going to speak up they were greatly advised to don't do that don't go public on this because there's still this stigma the very point I'm talking about that would undoubtedly and I think I believe there was a real risk that it would affect future employment opportunities for that individual. What was the positive effect? The interventions has had a positive effect there's no doubt about that. Liam Kerr and a supplementary. Very briefly convener just to drill into that point can I ask Mr McFarlane empirically you talked about your personal experience have the songs and language that you spoke about reduced since the 2012 act was introduced and if so is there any evidence that that reduction is a function of the act and not something else like a change in societal attitude for example? I can't say whether there's been a reduction in the last five years or we can comment on is is our latest research and again what the equality networks latest research and I don't know whether the equality network had done research at the start of 2011 or before when the act came in but what we do here and what we see and what LGBT people tell us and what our research tell us is that there is a problem around LGBT homophobia, biphobia, transphobia at football matches be that chanting, be that song lyrics, be that again LGBT people not feeling safe and secure attending football matches or watching you know a live football match in the pub for example our research has also shown that a percentage of that language or abuse has come within a sport a live sport setting whether that be at the actual stadium or at the club or whether that be in a pub for example but what we do do and what we have seen in a shift from our perspective is the work that we're doing with clubs so we're working on our rainbow laces initiative which basically is actually as they are rainbow laces and that we work with grass roots clubs but also now working with the SPFL who supported the rainbow laces initiative and we launched that in November and we're in conversations with some of the Premier League clubs about how they can take part in that that's been a shift for us in the last five years because beforehand organisations didn't want to work with us on these issues my specific question so has there been a reduction in the behaviour that you talked about as a specific function of the act being introduced answer that because we don't have the evidence to suggest that from our research thank you Fulton. I do want to come back to briefly I know it's been touched on this issue of agap in the law. We heard in our last evidence session before recess here from the Crown Prosecution Service from Anthony McGeeke in a very strong statement from him before this committee that repeal in the act would lead to agap in the law and I see that the Scottish Women's Convention have also said the same in their submission today can I ask each of the panel members what their thoughts on that are and I know I appreciate that some have already touched on it a bit more than others so I will leave it each person's discretion whether they want to keep it a brief answer. Mr Halpin. Well I just referred to cases that we have acted of the work with which includes behaviour that you would describe as hate crime occurring in a public house and being referred to as for attitudinal change programmes very similar to the behaviour that was referred to as from a football ground under this act. I'm quite happy to come in very briefly we've already outlined quite at some length that we have the opinion that the hate crime elements which are dealt with in the offence of behaviour act are quite clearly covered by pre-existing legislation the additional point would be that there's quite clearly an anomaly here in terms of the narrative about hate crime and suppose what's inherent within your question and the fact that the two representative intermediary bodies who work directly with the Scottish Government's equality unit on the development of the race equality framework for Scotland and whose members and organisations we work with face the overwhelming majority of hate crime aggravations are both against or both in favour of repeal of this piece of legislation that's quite a strange circumstance. Now the two primary reasons why that is the case that we remain unconvinced at behaviour that would otherwise not be considered criminal should be criminalised in one particular setting, section 12e, and five years on we are unconvinced that the act is necessary and believed that it creates confusion and double standards within hate crime policy and legislation. If this act was coherent and provided a balanced remedy and took forward the social conversation with regards to hate crime in Scotland, we'd be backing up the Crown Office, the police and the Scottish Government as we do on various other strands of hate crime inequalities work in Scotland. This act doesn't provide it. Now the additional aspect of that is organisations such as us or I think Mr MacArthur touched upon earlier, virtue of criticising this act or challenging this act. There's a particular social narrative which is developing that somehow we're pro-hate crime or pro-sectarianism. I've seen that begin to manifest within certain websites or editorials within particular newspapers. Not only is that insulting to organisations who have challenged hate crime their whole lives in conjunction with key stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, it's a really dangerous political binary to set with regards to legislation which has contested. So for those reasons, we don't see that there will be a gap in the law. I don't think we'll be suggesting that, but I just want to clarify, in your opinion, that answering McEacon when he gave us his evidence is incorrect. I'm not going to sit and say that another person's submission is incorrect, obviously from his perspective. I'm quite happy to respond, though. Our analysis is different to the Crown Office and different to Mr McEacon's, and it's different in relation to this act in many aspects. Mr McEacon, as a humble public servant, has a duty to respond to and protect the legislation which he has at his doorstep, and this is an absolutely critical matter with regard to this piece of legislation. Some of the issues that you're dealing with should not be crossing Mr McEacon's table and shouldn't be crossing any individual police officer's table. These are issues that have to be debated and discussed outside of the criminal justice system. In relation to the gap in the law—I've already covered sections 1 and 2 with regard to hate crime and the additional general offensive behaviour. My understanding is from the additional submission put in by Police Scotland following their verbal submission with regard specifically to section 6. For example, an individual making a threat intended to stir up racial hatred could not be dealt with using the section 6 offence, but would risk being prosecuted using other legislation? That couldn't be clearer to me in terms of that additional aspect, which we've not covered so far. There won't be a gap in the law. I think that you've asked a question on travel, because that's a pretty long supplementary. I think that you're going into other lines of questioning and other members will be cast. I want to also come to the other two panel members as well on that, and as you heard there from the convener, if the answers could be brief— Yes, Mr McFarling. Do you want it to come in? Our understanding is that the 2012 act does cover—I need to get my teeth around it—extraterritoriality, which basically means that matches that take place internationally—Scots going to watch their national football team or the Scotland team internationally—if there was an incident of hate crime or abuse, whether that's online or at the match, that they can be prosecuted consistently abroad as well. I think that COPS had stated—the Crown Office and Prosecutor's Fiscal Service had stated before the committee that they had used this piece of legislation to prosecute hate crimes under those circumstances. If you were to take the act away, that does leave a gap if you're looking at international matches, and certainly what the Crown Office and Prosecutor's Fiscal Service has been saying as well. No other comments. Okay, Fulton? Yes. This is a question more specifically for Sandy. I think that Colin and Danny have talked about the groups that they represent a wee bit more. Do you think that there have been any changes for the folk that you represent when going to matches or has the act wed to any changes in that? What sort of things do you experience when you're going to games? You touched on it in your opening statement. If we're looking over the past five years, this is a very young organisation and I haven't done the same research as the other organisations, but I will gladly get involved with it to find out this. I don't have the data, but in my own experience, I've been doing this for 14 years. I have seen instances involving aggressive behaviour towards disabled people. Partly through lack of ignorance, because not everybody can look at, well, do you know if I've got a disability? You can't tell, and that's part of the thing. It's actually getting to be dealt with by either students or by the police. We've had circumstances before where we've addressed it, highlighted it, reported it, and nothing gets done. Where do I go from there? How do I get to that sort of information? I'd like to know from other clubs as well and other organisations, or the other SDSAs, the Disabled Supports Association of what their experience is, and I think I'll take from here a road map, if you want for a better word, to find out what it is and gain experience of this. I can recall an instance at Sullig Park where a section of the fans were directing the abuse at the Disabled Supports because we were at the front and couldn't get anything done about it. That needs to be stopped, because you can quite clearly see on CCTV that things were happening. Another instance of drunken behaviour, disorderly behaviour, now that will probably come under another part of the law, but I'm not 100 per cent sure enough. There needs to be something in place, what it is, I'm not 100 per cent sure. I don't have enough. Fair to say that there's still more work to be done by your association contacting other clubs just to get in the staff. What you've said is helpful, but that's good, just to put it in context. I think that we really have to move on now. You've just done that in the very beginning, you certainly went on message. We need to move on. A lot of what I was going to cover has already been touched on, but I wanted to start by picking up on something that Colin had mentioned in his answer to both Liam MacArthur and Liam Kerr. When you said that the act gives LGBT people confidence that there will be protected at football matches, you know that I'm very supportive of anything that can be done to make any kind of sporting event more supportive for LGBT people in general. You also say that very few LGBT people report crime. While I understand that the act may give the perception that it is safer to attend a sporting event, do you have any evidence that LGBT people are actually using the act to report crime? No, I don't have evidence of that, but I'll take you back to the jigsaw analogy that I gave. Yes, we do know that there's a problem around LGBT people feeling confident in reporting hate crime to the police, but we also know, as I said, that 82% of LGBT people have heard homophobic, transphobic, biphobic language and abuse at football matches. The principles of the act form part of that jigsaw that builds that confidence, but there's still work to be done. There's work to be done in our schools, there's work to be done in our communities, there's work to be done with the criminal justice systems, Police Scotland, there's work to be done with the clubs as well, but this forms part of that armory to make LGBT people feel safer and secure, whether that be in the communities at work, at school or attending football matches. We don't have evidence about whether they're using this in that sense to say that we're going to report or not report around that, but what we do know is that the act does make people feel confident that there is something in place as part of that jigsaw puzzle, part of that armory that protects them and makes them feel confident and safe. Okay, thank you. I'll come on in a minute to talk about how hate crime can be tackled, but I just wondered if any of the panel, and I would appreciate it if we didn't so much rely on statistics, but do any of the panel members have anecdotal evidence that the kind of behaviour that we are talking about is now less prevalent at football matches because of the act? I would certainly say that there is an attitude that comes through that those people refer to our project that there's more likely of robust enforcement towards them. The question is, would that robust enforcement have been possible with the existing legislation? That's a key point that I would make, and there's nothing to suggest because of the examples that I've given that that couldn't be the case with the proper briefing. My understanding is that it's certainly pretty consistent in police briefings through the start of this journey, even for the officers receiving the briefings. There was confusion about what act do I use because they were so ingrained in their thinking and use to the existing legislation. They were trying to understand why they would use that at the start so that the commanders that matches themselves had to explain that and take that forward. I think that the act has raised it in everyone's consciousness and that's why we were supportive of it at the start and in terms of everyone's belief that there will be robust enforcement if it's properly reported and responded to by the match commander, but we're hearing examples in terms of disability where clearly it wasn't appropriately responded to, but it might be circumstantial there at that time. What's the retrospect of the investigation, et cetera? The final bit is about the message that it sends to those who are victimised by us, which is hugely important. It's also about the message that it sends to those who have those beliefs and cultures and how do we change that because that is really, really impact of how we change others who are growing into the sport. My strong belief in the experience that I've got is that the low level of prosecution, the low level of referral, is that we haven't got a grip of that yet. Danny, do you want to add anything? Yeah, I'm just considering whether I'm going to give a personal anecdote or not. I will because I think that it's relevant to the context that you pointed to me that you've asked and where we're going. At the time in 2011, when the concept around the act was being developed, I was working at that particular time for an organisation based in Glasgow called the Irish Heritage Foundation. The Irish Heritage Foundation were funded via the Irish Government's immigrant support programme. Basic premise, they'll put money into communities where there's a large Irish diaspora. Now, going by how the act's been implemented, I know that you don't want me to focus too much on the stats but it's important as a subsidiary to my main point here. My characteristics, being a lay Catholic person from an Irish diaspora, is probably most likely to be a victim within the context of this piece of legislation. Now, at the time in 2011, I was also one of the people contacted by Strathclyde Police and said, please be careful with what you receive in the post and where you attend in the general public. At the time, the Irish Heritage Foundation's submission to the bill's concept was to be against the bill because we didn't see this piece of legislation adding any value for the reasons I've now outlined from a race equality perspective also to a much broader societal issue and putting the focus primarily or disproportionately into football was entirely unhelpful. In terms of how football's developed over the last five years, no, I've not seen from a personal perspective the act have a meaningful outcome in terms of some of the behaviours that you've identified. Colin, you talked about the rainbow laces campaign and I'm a proud owner of my own pair of rainbow laces and there's the charter that the equality network are trying to get clubs to sign. That is, in my view, a very important way of tackling homophobic abuse, sectarian abuse, all sorts of abuse from the club all the way down to the supporters and Dany you spoke about the importance of education. What other tools can we use within that framework of education to change what are, in some cases, quite deep-seated and quite deep-rooted views on particularly sectarian and LGBT behaviour? You could start, Colin, yes. I can only speak from an LGBT perspective, so your right education is absolutely critical. Our school report, which we published last month, showed that there are still shockingly high levels of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in our schools. We know that our teachers still don't feel confident about talking and tackling those issues. The TIE campaign has obviously done a lot of work about raising issues around that. We have a train the trainer programme, which was in direct response to our first school report that came out that showed that it was 75 per cent of primary school teachers and 44 per cent of secondary school teachers were told that they cannot talk about LGBT issues in the classroom. We operate a train the trainer programme, which goes in to train teachers specifically on LGBTI issues. They then go back into the school and train their peers. Education is critical. We know—I do not know the stats, but I know LEAP Sports, which is an LGBT sports campaign organisation, are doing interventions around sport in school, because we know that is where a lot of LGBT young people's really negative experiences of sport and how they feel about sport. Again, personally, I can vouch for that. All of that, again, part of the jigsaw puzzle about how we make those changes. To go back around the Rainbow Laces campaign, there has been a bit of education for football clubs themselves around the work that they need to do. I know that the equality network has been working hard for a long time. We have been doing the same over the last three or four years to even try and get our feet through the door around some of the clubs and the SPFL and the SFA for them to understand that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse does happen in football matches, that LGBT people do not feel safe about attending. All of that in the mix is making things better. This is when I go back to the fact that the act is part of that jigsaw puzzle. I did not respond to your first question there, but we do believe that the shift that we have seen in clubs and the governing bodies to wanting to talk about this issue and actively tackling that issue has come from the higher profile that these issues have had, partly because we think of the act, because they tell us that themselves. That is a rumbling answer, but we think that education is actually key, but it is again part of the jigsaw puzzle, part of the armory that we need to use to tackle this. Do you think that education will tackle the very deep city, particularly in sectarian behaviour? Will education tackle that? Are you asking me that directly in sectarian? If you are looking at social change programmes, if you look at how you move the dial, that kind of nudging, you would hope so, but I do not have an honest answer about whether we will completely eradicate either homophobia, biphobia, transphobia or whether we eradicate sectarianism. I think that through education and teaching our young people about what it is like to grow up and live in a modern 21st century Scotland, we have to be able to talk about those issues and be able to tackle those issues through an education system. Education is an incredibly important role to play. The curriculum for excellence, right respect in schools offers us two examples of conduits for increasing knowledge about 21st century Scotland and the diversity of the communities and populations that live here, and that they are all intrinsically valuable to Scotland as individuals and as communities of protected characteristics. We run a number of campaigns enhanced by our diversity, combined by our humanity, and so much of that is about celebrating the intangible cultural heritage of the diverse communities that we call Scotland home and embedding that within the education processes is incredibly important. I am happy to say that we will be taking forward via the context of the race equality framework work with Education Scotland and other race equality partners to create or review the curriculum for excellence resources with regard to that very specific point, shifting things back to the specifics of football. If we can take one positive or a number of positives outside of the technical disagreements or discussions that we have had with regards to the value or not of the Offensive Behavior Act, if as a catalyst of this broader discussion we are able to put much more emphasis into progressing these issues outside of the criminal justice system, then there is a significant value to be had in that, and if that is hypothetically a coalition of organisations such as us represented here today, fans groups and so on and so forth, to put into a sporting environment what we are what we intend to put into an education environment, then that is something that can be highly beneficial. There is a tendency in regards to this bill and in regards to football fans in general to talk about them or to assess them almost entirely in the negative. I am going to say something beyond the stats, which I have already said are absolutely minimal, and there is less hate crime in football than there is in the general populace. Beyond that, football fans are running food drives from the events that football games have attended. I have seen pro-refugee banners, anti-racism banners, I have seen for probably the first time pro-LGBT banners a couple of weeks ago in the appropriate day. There is a lot of really progressive stuff happening within football clubs and football supporters and fan culture, and that is something that has to be appropriately acknowledged. The stats are saying something and the actual development of how people support their teams in Scotland is changing as well. We need to harness that as opposed to having these discussions within the criminal justice system, because it is polarising opinion and it is creating some fairly significant issues, which there are other avenues to tackle. I want to go back to the specific point about education. There is a huge amount of work that goes on across education around educating young people around diversity, inclusion and the law. Our experience and part of our approach is that where a school has specific issues with specific individuals, with behaviours, etc., that is something that needs more than the broad education that needs actually working with the young people themselves in terms of their beliefs and cultures and all the things that go around that. I urge real caution about saying that we are already doing all that and doing this work. There needs to be interventions with that behaviour that actually bubbles up through the school. Sandy, did you have anything that you wanted to add? I was on the element—it is a bit about education, but it is a tangent. A lot of disabled people who go into football matches are scared of their environment, scared of what is happening in the ground, whether it be noise, singing, chanting or general foul language. Sometimes it is difficult for them to perceive what is going on. Part of some of the stuff that I have done around autism—there is an organisation called Shipley campaign down in England, where we try to help to educate and integrate people to enjoy football, to go to a game to enjoy football. There are quite a lot of people out there who will do that. The education—I think that they need to be made to be aware that there is stuff in place for them to make sure that they are safe, that people will look after them when they go to football matches, and that something will be done if something goes wrong. That is what I want to make sure. I have seen a couple of times where nothing has been followed through. It is to make sure that that element of the society that wants to go to football matches is the one that they cannot and that they know that it will be safe. We have talked about Lord Bracadale's hate review. I wonder if I could ask each of you to answer fairly briefly, given that it is due to report in spring of next year, and it will include the 2012 act. Do you think that it is sensible to wait until the outcome of that review? Can I just ask each of you in turn? No, they should be repealed at the quickest possible opportunity because it is not dealing with hate crime and because it is creating significant issues that are independent of some of the concerns that have been raised today. You would not think that it is sensible to wait until you see what the actual review might address the points that you are raising. What we have called for is an educational approach, a universal approach to tackling hate crime in terms of taking forward a strategy. There are far too many contentious issues inherent with the implementation of the act. It is no longer, as I talked about, on policing by consent. It no longer has the respect or credibility that a piece of legislation such as that needs, so I would support its repeal as soon as possible. That does not leave any gap in the law in terms of tackling actual hate crime. Rona Cysluniw, can you ask the next question? Just to ask Colin, talking about the online abuse that the LGBT people suffer, I wonder if you could elaborate a wee bit on that. Presumably, some of them report it. I know you say that there are difficulties in people reporting it, but some do. Do you think that the repeal of the act would make them even less likely to report it? Well, we know, for example, that LGBT people themselves experience individually elements of hate online. Let me just see if I can find the stat for you. One in 12 have experienced online homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse of behaviour. That increases to one in four trans people, so that's 23%. Even when that communication isn't aimed at you as an individual, seeing that kind of abuse, whether that's on Twitter or on Facebook or on forums, that increases to nearly half have witnessed some kind of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse of behaviour online that wasn't directed to them, and that's in the last month. Our view is section 6, which covers the communications element, is vitally important. Again, it goes back to sending those signals. If the act was to go, would it stop people reporting? I honestly can't say, but when it goes back to the element of if people understand that there is something there that helps them and that is protecting them around online abuse, if it goes and disappears and there's nothing there in its place—I mean, the communications act's 2003 is obviously there, but, as far as I'm aware, it's hard. We weren't able to find figures available of whether online hate cases have prosecuted under communications act 2003, so I can't make a correlation between whether or not that would go, but section 6, for us, is an important piece of the legislation. Can I just ask Sandy to please call and talk to her earlier about the LGBT community feeling a bit more protected by the act and the fears if it was repealed? Is that how you think that disabled groups look at it as well? Do they feel a bit more protected because the act is there, either at matches or travelling to and from matches? Yes. We've experienced a big sign on the bus that says that, as disabled supporters, we still get abused, so, yes. I agree with Colin Nassman. Thank you. Thank you, convener. My question relates to both what Ronan has asked about section 6 and comments that have been made in regard to section 6 of the act, rather than the bill that Stuart Stevenson referred to, but also in regard to Brackendale. It's been clearly made to ask that, from prosecutors and Police Scotland, there is strong support for section 6 of the act in that it's been successfully used to prosecute individuals who have been made serious threats of violence against members of the public, including threats of murder and individuals who have made threats towards the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Catholic community, designed to stir up hatred on a basis of religious grounds. I have real concerns about the repeal of this act in terms of those who have experienced hateful communication online. Do witnesses feel that the introduction of the 2012 act has had any impact, not just in terms of the practical effect in the criminal justice system, but in sending a message about online behaviour and what online behaviour is unacceptable? If I may convener, with a specific reference to Danny Boyle and Beamus, your point earlier about how we should always look to challenge legislation and consider its effectiveness, absolutely with you on that. What I'm finding hard to confer with is the strong view expressed to the previous question that repeal should happen as quickly as possible. Surely we have a constructive opportunity here with Brackendale to work together consensually across the sectors that are involved and across the parliamentary chamber to think about how we should pull off the act together. Utilising section 6 and the strong support that there is for that and thinking about other aspects in the bill—I think that it is really important in our communications that we think about this piece of legislation that is under review as having those two elements—the offensive behaviour at football and the threatening communications aspect. It would be interesting if I may have a supplementary answer. I understand that section 6 is being used as 17 charges over the five years. I am not able to clarify that figure or not, but it is a very utilitarian perspective rather than thinking about the catechol imperative and the fact that it has been useful for prosecutors in certain circumstances for achieving the ends of justice, and that is extremely important. I think that the focus on whether it is an effective piece of legislation or not should not be judged on the stats as being more important. The potential justice that has been attained with the use of section 6 has more value than the volatile injustice that is potentially contained within section 1-5. We are not averse to reviewing hate crime legislation, which is exactly what we are doing within the context of the Brackadale review. As I have already acknowledged, the suite of hate crime laws are difficult to navigate and access a remedy for those who are victims of characteristic breaches. On the offensive behaviour act in section 1-5, as I have already said, I do not know how many times I can repeat it. They do not primarily deal with hate crime. 18 per cent of crimes prosecuted by our charges under the act last year were considered hate crimes, so I cannot see the value in terms of us being able to track the trends of hate crime where they are manifesting what the genesis of that thought or behaviour is via this kind of opaque set of statistics that we receive in regard to the offensive behaviour act. That becomes even more complicated when we add in the general offensive aspect to it, and I have outlined already that there are particular issues and concerns with regard to that from minority, community, social, cultural and historical analysis of events that have taken place in the UK. I think that our points are equally justified. I do not think that your point should necessarily supersede the issues that we have identified with section 1-6. My argument holds more weight considering that there is no gap in the law with actual hate crime aggravations against specificity section 6. We have already acknowledged from the police's evidence that a racial aggravation would not necessarily be used with the threat and communications aspect of the offensive behaviour act. We would maintain our position that the act can be repealed and that, if there is any particular positive learning that we can take from the 17 charges with regard to section 6 of the Offensive Behaviour and Threat and Communications Act, we can take that into the Brachydale review, but we just cannot see the justification for maintaining the implementation of a piece of legislation that has no credibility and does not actually, in its entirety, challenge hate crime. Sure, Andy, but the alternative perspective, of course, would be that by losing section 6 through repeal, there would be a gap in the law. I appreciate that you have disputed that today, but others would substantiate that. 17 charges in section 6. I know that your point in terms of those 17 charges, as I am assuming, is about what about the 17 people who have been the victims of that crime, but you have also got an otherwise offensive over 130 charges, which could easily be argued by the 130 people who have those charges defending on the specifics, which we do not have any knowledge of here, that those are unjustified charges. That is our particular concern with section 1.2e. If we are playing a numbers game, who is more important than the potential 17 victims of a miscarriage of justice? You may want to play that numbers game, but I am certainly not. The point that I am making is that— I think that we are getting around in circles. I think that you have had a response. Is there anything new that you want to bring up, Ben? I just want to state that. I think that the question should be perhaps how we look to reform rather than peel on that being more a constructive approach considering the substantial review that lies ahead of us. I just wondered if any other panel members wanted to come in, particularly on the importance of section 6. That there are no cases referred into our service in terms of that section. From my perspective, it is about how we apply it. I think that the point that you make, Ben, about Brachydell being the opportunity to have an overarching review is absolutely pertinent. We know that this is coming. We know that we cannot pre-empt what is going to come in terms of looking at the act in itself as part of the recommendations of Brachydell, but to remove that piece of legislation and have nothing in its place, or not to at least be able to have a considered view of what Brachydell would come back with and how some of the concerns that we have all made about implementation, about whether we think the act is right or wrong, that is the point to have the discussion for our point of view. Anything that takes any protections potentially away, and again the signalling of what the act can mean to people in terms of the symbolism, with nothing in its place or not having reviewed what Brachydell may or may not say. For us it would be a folly, it would be the wrong thing to do, an immediate repeal to get rid of it quickly before Brachydell has reported back just does not make sense from our perspective. Maurice Corry Mr Boyle, cutting to the chase, if, as you suggest, the 2012 act has done little or nothing to tackle hate crime, what needs to be done in your opinion to eradicate this and also offensive behaviour for more matches? Basic question. I may already have touched upon what our suggestion would be. Again, this is where we share the considerations of our colleagues on the panel and with Mrs Macpherson, that the Brachydell review offers a perfect opportunity to bring clarity to the suite of hate crime legislation that we have at the moment. Independent of that, we feel that we need to be careful not to conflate hate crime with the criminal justice system, that we have to have alternative approaches starting at the early stage with education. That is where our focus will be moving forward. I actually understand from discussions with Police Scotland that that will be their additional focus with regard to the Brachydell review. We will be taking a lot of the momentum or a lot of the burden of hate crime issues out of the criminal justice system and beginning to preventative educational measures. That should happen across society. There should not be a disproportionate focus on a sport where the stats are telling us that hate crime is actually happening less than the rest of society. I want to ask Tom a question about the stop programme. It is disappointing that it has not been used perhaps as much as it would be expected. It is especially going to give young men an opportunity to divert away from prosecution. For me, when I mentioned that in the last session, that seems more of an implementation issue as opposed to an issue to do with the legislation as such. If the act is not repealed and it stays, would you welcome some sort of guidance perhaps on more use of that? I said that I should probably declare an interest in that as a previous criminal justice social worker. I know fine well the good work that Sackle will do. I am sure that it is a very effective programme given the opportunity. What are your thoughts on that? Actually, there is an awful lot of common ground between us. I thank you for your comments. There is a harsh reality that Scotland, because of the need to send the right message to those groups who are victims of the legislation, means that those who are making decisions are quite defensive about their decision making. They are nervous about diverting people away from prosecution, for example. If you are having a conversation with the marking fiscal and saying what circumstance we have remarked away, you will get different answers. Although you have consistent marking policies and all the rest of it, it is how you make sure that you are respectful to the victims and the groups in the interests that are there. If we repeal the act, will it greatly change the profile of that service? No, it won't. I would say that a huge bit of the profile of that service is not about the individual interventions, but about the education that is about reaching out. It is working in prisons as well and going straight to the source of groups who dominantly would have those behaviours and those embedded beliefs. I do think that there is something about the application and the process that I would acknowledge that. However, the thing here is that there is a bit about SACRO about whether we are disproportionately targeting one group and criminalising them and stigmatising them and that impacts on a future opportunity. In that case, I have a view that you legislate when the reason to have that legislation for criminal conduct is compelling and overwhelming. It is beyond reasonable doubt and we have a case here where you are having baby dough. In that case, I am not convinced. I would like to take you back to the act's aim of tackling sectarianism. I appreciate the point that Mr Boyle made at the start about the definition of sectarianism. That aside, do you think that sectarianism is a significant problem throughout Scottish football? Or, as someone may have suggested, is it limited to two particular clubs? Has there been any change both pre- and post-2012? The referrals into our service are not exclusively from the two clubs that you are indicating. Everybody at this panel will have their own anecdote. I bet that if you go round the opposite side of the table in life, if you have grown up in Scotland, you will have been touched by earth in some way. I do not in any way hold this view that it is restricted to two particular football clubs in Scotland, but this is a Scottish societal issue. Is that echoed by the rest of the panel? I am a man from the north-east. As I grew up throughout the years, we heard of secretaries and I thought that I did not know what that word was as a child. Normally, I have a brother about it. It did not matter whether he was a Catholic or Protestant or whether he had a green scarf or a blue scarf or a red scarf. It did not really matter. I wish that it was looking at it today, but it is not. I think that it is also where you are and where you are living as well, whether it is Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness, Wick, Stonaway or Lerwick. It is different everywhere. You do not make me necessarily experience in Aberdeen, but you might experience in Aberdeen in Peterhead, Fraserborough or Forrest, but whether it crosses Roligins, it is really diverse. I have difficulty in setting it in one straight line, if you understand what I am trying to say. Do you think that the 2012 act has had any impact? If we start from a position that says that there is sectarianism at football, has the 2012 act impacted upon that? If it has, where is the evidence of the cause and effect? If it has not, what would be a better way to achieve an impact on sectarianism? That is a pretty old question when it comes to sectarianism. As we said in our introductory comments, it has become like chewing gum. It is what we put on something when we disagree with somebody else's particular point or particular opinion. It has become a valueless concept of trying to describe a set of circumstances or situations. What we see in the act is that we are able to identify in a traditional sense of what sectarianism is, intra-christian sectarianism, where there is anti-Catholicism or anti-producent issues manifesting in terms of the number of attendees at football and what is coming through in relation to the number of charges and prosecutions under the act, it is tiny. That does not necessarily say that there is not a broader issue around the whole gambit of social, political, cultural histories that different people have in Scotland and how they interact with each other. However, that act is not providing an appropriate place for those debates and discussions and informed discussions to take place. There is also largely a fallacy that sectarianism is the prime responsibility of two particular clubs. Again, looking at the act, 12 per cent of charges under the Offensive Behaviour of Football and Threatening Communications Act relating to Rangers v Celtic matches is just over one tenth. That does not reflect an issue or that narrative that sectarianism in Scotland is primarily the responsibility of two particular clubs. What I would like to take us to now in relation to sectarianism is, and I have said it time and time again, is the section 12e of the act, which covers generally offensive behaviour, because what we have seen is the challenge for individual police officers. As I said earlier, I am not sociologist, anthropologist, historians who have not to interpret songs that are sung at particular football matches or at any football match, which are then deeming sectarianism and focusing it via the generally offensive or otherwise offensive. That is the complication. As we heard from supporters Direct Scotland, defensive behaviour could be something as innocent as doing the conga at football, where people were then filmed and that is a procedural issue, which is a big concern. However, we know in all seriousness from the Lord Advocate's guidelines and the jurisprudence in relation to the act that it is most likely to cover songs that show support of terrorist organisations or glorify or celebrate events involving the loss of life or serious injury. Now, we must maintain our position that we have articulated throughout this act's implementation and one that we identified to Police Scotland in relation to the decade of centenaries, which we touched upon within our written submission, that celebrating a British, Scottish or Irish, social, cultural or political identity does not in itself constitute sectarianism or offensiveness worthy of criminal proceedings. That is the bone of contention with this particular piece of legislation with regards to section 12e. That is the concerns where we have the charges that are going through as generally offensive behaviour. That is where the intersection has taken place, where we potentially would identify, from our perspective, miscarriages of justice going through because of this act, because there is a misinterpretation of what constitutes sectarianism. Instead of me and you having that conversation or organisations having that conversation or communities who come from those communities having those conversations, it is coming down to the individual interpretation of a single police officer. I want to come back in a second, but I know that Mr Halpin wants to come in. I have been talking specifically about whether this act had an impact in relation to football matches and travelling to and from football matches. I believe that there is no doubt that it has had an impact. The leadership of this Parliament in passing that legislation sent a very strong message to society, to the agencies, to the clubs and to the associations around the clubs that this behaviour was totally unacceptable. We know that it came out of events that happened and all the rest of it. There was a conversation and a public dialogue around that. The question is, why did it need a piece of legislation to take the leadership and then really focus the attention on this as an issue? The whole briefings around football became more focused on that behaviour and the club's own security arrangements, etc. Society moved on. The question that the Parliament has raised today is, did it have to be the legislation that brought that change? That is a bigger discussion, but there is no doubt that having that legislation did shift that dialogue on at the time. Can I press you on that? I think that you were nodding there, and you might want to come in on that point. Just one final question. Sackrow's submission and throughout the session today, there has been some suggestion, or I am hearing some suggestion, that the criminalisation does not address an underlying attitude such that the question is, would it be better to change people's views? Would it be better to change the underlying prejudice, if I might put it that way, such that the behaviour stops in people's self-police rather than using what I might suggest as a rather blunt tool of legislation to suppress attitudes and criminalise people rather than changing what underlies that attitude? It will be no surprise that it is not a yes or no answer. The reality is that you can have a blunt instrument if you are being criminalised. As I have described, if we went to fix penalty tickets in the area, there is my symbol of my distaste of what you have done and go away. Does anyone honestly believe that that is going to change beliefs and change attitudes? I have vignettes, I have case studies of people who have reported to us that this has really changed my thinking. I understand that. I am now at college and I am doing not the real life-changing things, because once you start to actually work through people in terms of what their belief systems are, about how do they recognise the risk of their behaviour, because some of it is they get taken along by the crowd, they get taken along by their peers, and how do they withstand that? That can be a very brave position for them to actually be different themselves in that situation, and then start the societal shift that we are talking about in a very small example of it. It needs the mix, which is the point that I am making. The big thing is that, at the moment, the cases that are being prosecuted, if we are looking at 26 in a year and the figures are much higher, what is happening to the others? What is the intervention with them other than the prosecution? Can I just go back on a supplementary point there as well? Just actually, you might think of something there, but we do not actually have the high enough awareness of the narrative of charges that have progressed, prosecuted and then found not guilty. There is a significant number. I think that at the last evidence session there was the differentiation in terms of what was the correct figure, but there is quite clearly a significant number of charges and prosecutions under that act, which take a significant amount of time, which might be precarious in terms of the individual who is arrested and then in relation to who they have actually offended and who the victim is, and then they may be found not guilty. Now, what we have not analysed is the impact that that has had on that person's life throughout the duration of their trial diets and so on and so forth. I would encourage the committee to revisit that, because it seems to be an absolutely fundamental issue in relation to maybe I am hearing things, which Collins is not hearing about the implementation of this piece of legislation, which is why we take such a strict line in terms of its repeal having to come as soon as possible. I think that that is something that we have to illuminate further and look into. Just one final point—this is a crux of the matter—we are criminalising people for conduct in one specific set of circumstances, which is not criminalised in another set of circumstances. That is a fundamental issue. I can go into specifics of examples where something has happened at football and something has happened in this Parliament, and there have been two different approaches. They are actually expressing the exact same thing. To add something, is it a lengthy or do you want to give more written evidence? No, it is very quick, because it is to deal with parliamentary motions and songs at football. What we were talking about earlier, and it is in our written submission, when we had met at the behest at the request of the Football Coordination Unit Focus, because they had concerns about how they were going to police events or commemorations that may take place at Scottish football grounds with regard to the decade of centenaries, and their concerns primarily were based upon the 1960-neased horizon in Ireland, the Battle of the Somme, which are the significant connotations for many of the Ulster Scotch community who live in Scotland. The advice that we gave them was that, as we said in our previous point, that celebrating a social, cultural, political, Scottish Irish or British heritage is not offensive or criminal in itself. However, we know outside of the parameters of that discussion that people have been arrested for singing songs that pertain to that particular period, so we are arresting people in the context of football under a breach of section 12e. At the same time, we have a parliamentary motion put down in the Scottish Parliament, which is celebrating the exact same thing—1916 and the Irish Rebellion and the formation of the modern Irish state. To people on the ground who are dealing with these issues in a day-to-day basis, that strikes as a class hypocrisy. A social and political privilege for someone within the Convention of Scottish Parliament is not extended to the individual lay person in the street, which is the definition of inequality, which is the root of our concerns here. I do not think that that is properly acknowledged or understood within the broader equality debate about that legislation. I am conscious, Mary, that you have not asked questions to John Finnie. You have not asked questions before I am asking the member in charge just to confirm whether there is anything you want to do. Both of the questions that I had were related to the Scottish Women's Convention, which, obviously, they were the one that I tend to do. Did you want to come back? Sorry, Mr McFarlane, because I am just about to bring Mr Kelly in. Is your question primarily about whether we need blunt instruments like legislation to change societal views? Is that kind of where it is coming from? My concern is whether it is the right way—a number of the panel have made the point that there is an underlying attitude here. Is the best way to change that underlying attitude to criminalise, or is it better to address the attitude? The attitude still exists. Even if you criminalise me for singing a song, I may still hold that attitude. Again, I go back to that analogy about the jigsaw puzzling of being part of the armory. Our view very much is that legislation can change those attitudes and part of that legislative element could then lead to prosecutions. If you look at drink driving legislation, when it was fine to down five pints or ten pints and then go taking your car and you weren't arrested for it, then legislation came in and societal views started to change because you would be prosecuted for drink driving. You look at the smoking ban, for example, and the health effects that that has brought in. Again, the blunt instrument of smoking in a public place could lead to prosecution. Society and attitudes have changed around that. You look at domestic abuse legislation again, how that changes society. The view is that there needs to be a stick at points that sometimes move society forward. If you think that it is acceptable to go in your car and having drank so many pints to drive and then potentially take life by drink driving and there is no consequence for that, then everybody would still be doing it. If there isn't a consequence, I will take it from an LGBT perspective to be standing in a football match and turning round to somebody and saying, you're a faggot, you're a proof, you're a queer and meaning them harm and there's no consequence for that, then yes, I do think that legislation is necessary as part of a wider gamut of societal change. I think that it does change attitudes. It's a fair point, but does the legislation require to still be in place or is the legislation merely a kickstart such that once the process is in motion, you've no further requirement for the legislation? That would be an ideal perspective, wouldn't it, that you would never need legislation in place to stop criminal behaviour or antisocial behaviour or abusive language, but we're not there yet, are we? I think that the legislation is absolutely central to changing those attitudes and being there as a deterrent for people to act in a specific way, whether that's discriminatory, whether that's to get in a car and drink when you've been drink driving. The legislative element, I think, there is absolutely crucial about changing those attitudes where there needs to be a recourse, an enforcement action. It sends a signal that around this, in particular for us, that that behaviour will not be tolerated, it will be acted upon and there will be consequences for people that behave in a certain way. Are the panel aware of, prior to this act, being introduced in 2012, if someone had committed a sectarian or behaved in an offensive manner at a football match or travelling to and from, what legislation was there, what law was in place to charge and tackle that piece of offensive behaviour prior to the act coming into place? For criminal justice Scotland, that agrivation or religious agrivation still exists, it's still used. Actually, the police still use section 74, sometimes within the context of football for a religious agrivation. Does anyone else want its comment or all agree? Okay, thank you. Mary, did you indicate? Yeah, it was just a small point that Mr McFarland touched on as well in relation to Liam Kerr's question, because I think I was perhaps disagree with some of the points that raised by Mr Kerr, because I think you raised the domestic abuse legislation and I see that as one example where we are saying as a parliament that we are creating a specific offence of domestic abuse and we're telling people that coercive and controlling behaviour is part of that, that we are not going to accept the patterns of psychological abuse that we've seen, and that is about sending a message to people that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Really, to put it in terms of that, and I understand the point that you make, well, maybe if there are some changes to be still need that legislation, I think, you know, for areas such as that, you're always going to need that legislation in place to help deal with that behaviour. And to me, that is what's important about the offence of behaviour in football act. I completely agree with the points that you made earlier about what message are we sending to people if that act is repealed in terms of the type of behaviour that would then be seeing as being allowed and about being permitted again. So it would really just be to ask the other members of the panel as well about that when you look at similar examples, like I've just mentioned, about the domestic abuse legislation, is there not some agreement there that the parliament does need to send a message to try and tackle some of the issues that we're seeing here, that we do need legislation in place to try and lead that charge, if you see what I mean? I'll give you the final word, I think. I think the difference is that this legislation is at a specific group, at a specific activity. You know, I totally agree with your point about domestic abuse. I think we're slightly different here. It would be my own view on it. The message that we're sending to societies is bigger than this one act. You know, this is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. There's no difference anyone here in terms of that. The question is, do you need this particular act to carry on to do that message that you're talking about and I'm not convinced? Can we bring in James Kelly now? Okay. Thank you, convener. I have a point to each of the panellists for starting off with Mr McFarland. In the discussion around section 6, you made the point that there were a high number of instances of your members reporting online abuse. We've heard in evidence, and it's also in the financial memorandum, that there have only been 17 prosecutions in relation to section 6 over the five years. Do you accept then that the people who report instances of online abuse are absolutely correct that they expect those to be investigated, and that those who make online abuse to be brought into justice before the criminal justice system? Do you accept if you've got members reporting instances of online abuse and there's only been 17 prosecutions? The logical conclusion of that must be that the vast vast majority of those instances are going through the Telecommunications Act and not through section 6 in this act. As I said earlier, we couldn't find any figures that suggested what those stats were for the communications act 2003 about prosecutions and complaints that have gone through, so I can't make a comparison about whether that's happening more under communications act 2003 or whether it's to say—I don't know. What I would say around that is, again, it's the signal that the act sends to the LGBT community that these communications, online threats, abusive behaviour online, will be tackled. If we're looking at it from a football perspective, it will be tackled from a football perspective, but I can't make a comparison because I haven't seen figures from the 2003 act about what prosecutions have happened, so I don't know if they're higher or lower. We heard from Police Scotland in previous evidence that the route that was basically being used was the Telecommunications Act, and the evidence would seem to point to that. What message do you think that that then gives to your members if there's a piece of legislation in place that, in effectively, the police and the prosecutors are voting with their feet and deciding it's not good enough to secure prosecutions here and we haven't used a different route? Again, it goes back to my whole thing about the gamut and the jigsaw, and I would refer back again to what I was saying about Lord Bracadale. As I said earlier, we know there are implementation problems around this and, as you mentioned, there are 17 cases, but it could be, again, because I've not seen any figures. I don't know how many figures have come through the communications act 2003, so I don't know if they're higher or lower around that, but what I would say is that the Bracadale review is an opportunity to look at all of this in the round, so if it does appear, for example, that actually the Communications Act is working perfectly well, there's a higher level of prosecutions under that, that could then be formed part of what Bracadale comes back with. Again, I'm not going to say one way or the other that one's better or the other, because I don't have the figures for communications act 2003, so I don't know how many have been prosecuted under that, but I would say that the Bracadale review gives us an opportunity to look at all of this in the round and then to make those decisions from there. Okay, thank you. Mr Reef, leaving aside the issues around the act and just looking at the whole issue of promotion of a good atmosphere around football, we heard in a previous panel from the Scottish Football Supporters Association that one of the things they would like to see were the creation of local forums, if you like, where clubs, football supporters and police got together to look at the issues and to look at how they could promote good behaviour and good relations around football. Is that something that you and your members would be interested in participating in? That's one of the things we've actually been working with, with the supporters direct and with the SPFL, the SFA, over the past four or five years, so we've built up a dialogue to improve this, and it's getting it to drill down to the clubs. A lot of the clubs already have something in place with the communities and the fans and liaison officers being put in place. The DLOs, the disability liaison officers, they're not in place in every club, but that would help to go a long way to improving the atmosphere and improving relationships between clubs, police, student and the authorities. I think that that's something that would be broad agreement on. Mr Halpin, you spoke in your evidence and also in your submission about your interaction with the act, being in terms of the interventions that were referred to your stock programme. You said that there had been three referred through the act, and there had been others that had come through pre-existing legislation. Is it fair then to conclude from that that pre-existing legislation that was in place before 2011 was effective and would still be effective and captured in the type of offences that we've been discussing this morning? In terms of the cases that have come to our attention, if the pre-existing legislation had been and, as in the future, applied appropriately with the right message, then you would identify the same people and refer them to the same interventions for outcome. Mr Boyle, in your written submission you spoke about inconsistencies in terms of legal judgments. One of the principles of the Scottish legal system is that of legal certainty, of consistency in judgments of cases that come before the court. Can you give just a bit more detail in terms of these inconsistencies and how they have resulted in confusion in what you said was division amongst the judiciary? The two from memory that we picked up in our submission was the case of Mr Richmond, who had made the derogatory comment about the head of state of the United Kingdom and the leader of the Catholic Church, but was admonished under the act because that type of legislation wasn't meant for the likes of him, despite the fact that he'd quite clearly said something that could easily be construed as being sectarian in one of the small cases in the act, where the word sectarian actually maybe applies, obviously in both cases. Then that's not being applied, say, using section 12e, where people have been found guilty on the premise of committing a sectarian crime when the much more broadly extended interpretation of sectarianism, which has no legal validity within Scots law, is applied. I understand that there was an article 7 of the Human Rights Act challenge to a specific in that case, the Donnelly and Walsh case, which wasn't successful, but it was with regard to the specifics of the particular song in the case. From our perspective, that variation in just disability is quite a strong argument that the act, and particularly section 1, is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. That concludes our question. It's been very lengthy but very helpful evidence, and I thank the witnesses all for attending. We now suspend and our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 31 October 2017, when we will take evidence from Sheriff Principal Taylor on the Civil Litigation, Expenses and Group Proceedings. Scotland Bill will also take evidence at stage 2 of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill, and we'll move into private session.