 The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion 10072 in the name of James Kelly on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications repeal Scotland Bill at stage 1. I invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now and I call on James Kelly to the member in charge of the bill to speak to and move the motion in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. The Football Act has completely failed to tackle sectarianism. It is illiberal and unfairly targets football fans. It has been condemned by legal experts, human rights organisations and equality groups. The SNP Government must now produce a unified approach working through Parliament, charities and education. It is time to scrap this discredited act. I acknowledge, Presiding Officer, that this is a serious matter this afternoon. I am proposing a private member's bill that seeks to repeal and fill an act of the Scottish Parliament. In doing so, I think that it is very reassuring that we have a robust process that requires me to run through an initial consultation that had over 3,000 responses, over 74 per cent, which supported my proposal. A final proposal that requires to be signed by MSPs across the chamber and, of course, the parliamentary process of three stages, which is commenced by the Justice Committee hearings. Can I place on record my thanks to the Justice Committee clerks, officials and people who gave evidence and MSPs for a feel that they have produced a comprehensive body of work that will add to the parliamentary consideration of my bill? It is worth giving some reflection to the introduction of the original act of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. Much has been made of the background to the 2011 Celtic Rangers game and the events after that. It should be said that, in that session of the Parliament, some MSPs felt that the SNP Government had a somewhat ambivalent approach to sectarianism. I can remember an angry clash between Jack McConnell and Fergus Ewing. So, when there was talk about an approach to tackle sectarianism, it was welcomed in some quarters. However, looking back at the record from 2011 earlier this week, and obviously I was closely involved in that and I led the Labour opposition to the act, it became clear that where the SNP attempts to gain all parliamentary support for the legislation fell down, there was a lack of consultation that was willingness to work with other parties. Also, the fundamental issue was that the act was not about tackling sectarianism, it was about targeting football fans. That led to a position where all opposition MSPs opposed the act in the final stage 3 vote in 2011. When we then went on to the implementation, it was characterised by aggressive policing, which caused a lot of friction with fans. There was confusion over definitions in the act and what was legal and what was not legal. Police officers had to be sent on a training course in order to learn up on what was potentially offensive chanting under the act. What ended up was a lot of division between police and fans. There was division between political parties and confusion among the judiciary as to what was legal and what was not legal under the act. A lot of those themes ran all the way through to today, six years down the line, so it is no surprise that we have arrived at the position that we have. In terms of the section 1 evidence that the Justice Committee heard, we heard a very clear view from supporters that they did not feel that the act was fair in terms of its targeted football supporters. They did not feel that it was effective and felt that it led to deterioration in relationships between police and fans. From a legal point of view, we heard from the Law Society, who advised the committee that all of the convictions that were brought forward in the previous year could have been captured under pre-existing laws. For example, section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, in relation to breaches of the peace, and section 74 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003, in relation to religious aggravation. We also heard from the Law Society that they had a concern that the act had far too wide reach. As a result of that, there was a likelihood that there would be further legal challenges. That would undermine the already diminished credibility of the act. It is also important to emphasise the evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, a well-respected body that works closely with the Scottish Government. They drew the Justice Committee's attention to the fact that there still remained two potential areas where the act would breach ECHR, and all of that would lead to a lack of legal certainty. There were also several academics who gave evidence to the committee who questioned the potential implications of the act in relation to freedom of speech. I thank the member for taking the intervention that he is talking about, about evidence that the committee received. The equality network Stonewall Scotland and the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities all said in their evidence that repealing the act without a viable alternative, as he is suggesting, would send out exactly the wrong message about sectarianism in our attitude to it in society. I will cover the points about messaging and alternative towards the end of my speech. In terms of the section 1 evidence, it is important to look at some of the human examples and the impact that that has had on people's lives. One of the tranches of data from recent years showed that 49 per cent of the convictions under the act were young people under 20. One of the unfortunate things is that those who have been captured under the act tend to be young working-class males. They tend to not have had previous offences and tend to be in employment. I cannot believe that the Scottish Government intended that when it brought forward the act in 2011. No, I want to make some progress on that. I cannot believe that the Scottish Government intended that as a consequence. If you look at some of the cases, you see how unfair the act is and the impact that I had on people's lives. There was an instance of a rangers fan with an axe, the act banner, in relation to the legislation. He was arrested. Another feature is that of the police using overnight curfews. A Motherwell fan singing a song about an opposition team was kept detained for four days in Greenock prison. A hub supporter who had no previous convictions and his own voluntary efforts attended a police station with his lawyer and a family, was charged and then detained overnight. There was also the effect on people's lives and people's career. There was one young man who was charged and after a lengthy proceedings found not guilty, but he had to inform his employer due to disclosure rules. He felt that his career was under threat and that there was a lot of family pressure. There have also been a number of people who have been captured under the act of student teachers, NHS professionals and have been caught up in prolonged legal battles that have had a real strain. There is a real human impact on the way that people have been targeted and captured under the act. I think that in relation to section 6, that is the section that deals with threatening communications, you could certainly argue in terms of when the act was introduced originally. It was unusual that it was bolted on to the section in relation to offensive behaviour at football, but there is certainly a case that legislation in relation to online abuse is clearly essential, because that is something that has grown in recent years. I would like to ask the member how he intends to address the points that were specifically raised by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, where they identified three specific areas that section 6 addresses, three very important areas. How will the appeal of the act solve those problems? James Kelly? Although it is well intentioned, as the police told us at the Justice Committee, again because of the way that section 6 has been drafted, the legal threshold is too high and it is difficult to secure prosecutions. As a result, police and prosecutors are not actually using section 6. There have only been 17 cases brought forward in the six years that the act has been in operation, and there was only one conviction in 2016. Clearly, the act has not been effective in terms of threatening communications. As the police clearly told us, what they are doing to secure prosecutions is using the Communications Act 2003, rather than section 6 of the threatening communications section. Although that section is well intended, it is not fit for purpose, in my opinion. What we therefore have as a result of all that—this brings me to Joan McAlpine's point—is that we have a very weak message in terms of legislation. Do not forget that, all the way through the six years, only one party—the governing party—continues to support the legislation. That severely undermines the credibility of the message. When legal experts say that the basis of the act is weak and that continued operation will result in legal challenges and potentially challenges under ECHR, I do not think that it operates well in terms of legislation. It also causes a lot of confusion out in communities in terms of what is legal or not. There is a very weak message coming through from that act, and it has also failed to tackle sectarianism. Looking back at the 2011 debate, I noted in my speech that I drew attention to the 696 instances of religious aggravation in the previous year. There have been 719 religious aggravation in the past year, so the number of religious aggravation charges has actually grown in the time that the act has been in. It is the highest for four years, and only 7 per cent of it is related to football. The act has completely failed in terms of tackling sectarianism. We need a completely new approach. We need a unified approach. We need to bring the political parties, the fans and the legal experts together to emphasise a strong message around pre-existing legislation that works. We also need to invest in education and support sectarian programmes rather than cutting those programmes. I lie to that. We need work between police, football clubs and football fans in order to promote good behaviour at football. Those three strands are a good way to move forward, far more effective than the discredited legislation that we have in place. I submit my motion in support of the full repeal of the offensive behaviour at football act. Margaret Mitchell I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee and to summarise the findings of our stage 1 report on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeals Scotland Bill. A majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill, which has divided opinion. The committee report reflects both sides of the debate, although members were divided on whether or not to support the general principles of the bill, the rest of our report contains unanimous recommendations and conclusions. I thank all my committee colleagues for their efforts and willingness to achieve this outcome. This is a contentious bill and therefore it presented a difficult challenge for the Justice Committee clerks to reflect all views. The entire committee would therefore like to record its thanks to the clerks for the excellent work that they have done in producing this stage 1 report. Furthermore, although the committee opinion was divided on the solution, all members agree that sectarianism and offensive behaviour should be challenged wherever it is found. In terms of the committee's consideration of the bill, in June, an open call for evidence was issued and 30 submissions were received from organisations and over 250 from individuals. Those submissions helped to identify the key issues to explore with witnesses and oral evidence. Members took evidence from eight panels of witnesses over the course of six committee meetings. Those panels comprised of academics, fans groups, legal experts, religious groups and equality groups, as well as the minister and James Kelly. The committee thanks everyone who provided oral and or written submissions. The issues explored included whether repeal would create a gap in the law, the effectiveness of both section 1 and section 6 offences within the 2012 act and what message repeal would send. The 2012 act created two new offences. Section 1 is the offence that covers offensive behaviour at regulated football matches. Section 6 covers threatening communications. In evidence, the committee heard concerns from witnesses about both offences. It also heard warnings that the potential consequences of the repeal. Those who support retention of the 2012 act considered that repeal would send the wrong message about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. Those who applied the 2012 act stated that they believed that section 1 offence was fit for purpose and clearly understood by police officers. On the other hand, those in favour of repeal considered that section 1 offence discriminated against football fans and was poorly drafted, resulting in its inconsistent application by police officers. The committee also heard some evidence on how the 2012 act could, if retained, be amended. Quoted in our report is the swath of changes that the legislative academic Andrew Tekel suggested could be made to improve section 1. The minister committed to considering any improvements offered to section 1. A minority of the committee who did support the general principles is of the view that the Scottish Government should revisit the 2012 act and bring forward constructive amendments. The section 6 offence also split opinion but for different reasons. Those in favour of retaining the 2012 act argued that repeal would create a gap in the law, a topic that I shall return to later. That was of particular concern for some religious groups such as the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. However, those who support repeal of the 2012 act argued that section 6 is really used due to the high threshold created by its wording. The committee agreed that, should the bill be passed, it would be appropriate to consider how the provisions within section 6 could be updated and included in any further revision to hate crime legislation. Ms Mitchell will tell me if the committee came to a conclusion about how it could fill the gap between repeal and section 6 being enacted, because it seems to me that, even though you say that it is not being enacted often, it still is a very important bill to have in statute. I am coming to that point exactly. Whether passively it would break the gap, those in favour of retention highlighted the offence of incitement to religious hatred provision contained in section 6, as well as the extraterritoriality provisions within the act and the sentencing powers in section 6. Those who supported repeal of the 2012 act pointed out that the breach of the peace and the Communications Act 2003 and section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010 would be applicable to types of behaviour that was covered by the 2012 act. The committee concluded on balance that both sides of the debate were accurate in its description of what repeal would mean. Other than the offence of incitement to religious hatred contained in section 6, repeal would not result in behaviour or action currently prosecuted under the 2012 act becoming legal. We have gone on to develop what we can do then, which is coming to your point. As well as the policy debates around the bill, there was also much debate in the committee around the timing-proposed repeal. Lord Bracken-Dale is currently in the midst of an independent review of hate crime legislation to report in spring 2018 under the auspices of which covered the 2012 act. Some witnesses argued that the committee and Parliament as a whole should delay its consideration of the bill until Lord Bracken-Dale's review had concluded. However, the committee is aware that Lord Bracken-Dale's own consultation paper states that the review will therefore consider how the law should best deal with the type of hate crime behaviour that is covered by section 1 and in parallel with the Parliament's consideration of James Kelly's repeal bill. The final recommendations by the review will take into account the law as it is anticipated at that point. Given the information and given the wide scope of Lord Bracken-Dale's review, together with the time that it may take to properly examine his report once published, the committee unanimously agreed in its report that it would not be appropriate to delay the parliamentary consideration of the bill while Lord Bracken-Dale concludes his work. Furthermore, the committee as a whole was interested to hear of what measures could be taken to tackle sectarianism and hate crime. The bill has reinvigorated the discussion on what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. Members agreed that, regardless of whether the 2012 act is repealed or retained, the time is ripe for further publicity and education and what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. The committee also recommended that defining sectarianism in Scott's law could be a useful step and stress that education is vital to tackling such attitudes. Members were very interested to hear about the sacral tackling or offending prejudice stop service, which provides diversions from prosecution and works with people to help to identify their own attitudes and behaviours in an effort to effect long-lasting change. Unfortunately, the service and others like it have hardly been used in relation to the 2012 act, and the committee therefore recommended that those schemes were appropriate and should be used more widely. In conclusion, a majority of the members of the committee support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, and the entire committee looks forward to continuing to explore the issues raised by witnesses should the bill return to committee at stage 2. Government stands on the side of the vast majority of football fans who want to enjoy the game with friends and family in an atmosphere untainted by offensive, abusive or threatening behaviour. Sadly, we continue to see problematic behaviour at football. A persistent minority seem to think that it is their right to behave as they please with no regard for those around them or wider society. We do not see similar behaviours at other sporting events or, indeed, in other places where large numbers of the public gather for entertainment. This season alone has witnessed the abuse of infirmary athletics Dean Shields by opposition players and fans, vile online abuse towards young Celtic foundation ambassador Jay Beattie, banners replicating images associated with paramilitary groups and people posting offensive comments on social media about the abrox disaster. Above all, we want to ensure that people remain protected from these crimes and recognise that this behaviour will not just disappear, actions and interventions are required. Minister, would you agree that many good football fans who want this bill repealed also abhor that kind of behaviour in the football grounds? The vast majority of football fans do not condone this behaviour, but the fact of the matter is that, nonetheless, many now will not take their friends and families to football games because of the fact of this prejudicial and hateful behaviour, and I think that that is a terrible shame. In terms of recognising that other interventions are of course important, it is important to stress that this Government has invested £13 million since 2012 to support organisations to tackle sectarianism, an unprecedented amount far in excess of anything provided by previous Administrations. Our work is focused on education in schools, communities, prisons and workplaces, and it has delivered the first-ever national education resource while supporting teacher training to roll it out. I will take an intervention although Mr Kelly was not very keen on taking my intervention, but there we go. Thank you minister, I am sure that there will be an opportunity to take the summer up. Can you just confirm that in terms of the work of sense over sectarianism, their budget was cut from £2.3 million in 2015-16 to £800,000 in 2016-17? Funding of £2.3 million has not been awarded to any individual organisation. In fact, sense of sectarianism has received a total of £340,000 from the Scottish Government in the last three years. The Offensive Behaviour Act is part of our work to tackle hate crime. The act was not about replacing existing law but about giving better and sharper tools to police and prosecutors. Section 1 covers hateful behaviour, which serves up hatred against others based on their religious affiliation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic origins, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability. Why would we want to hear vile language used against any of those communities in our football grounds? In their most recent briefing notes, Stonewall Scotland confirmed that 60 per cent of sports fans have witnessed anti-LGBT language or behaviour in a sports setting, and 82 per cent said that it took place in relation to football. Section 1 also prevents people from expressing support for terrorism and glorifying or mocking incidents involving the loss of life or serious injury. What justification is there for allowing this kind of behaviour at football? Of course, freedom of speech has to be protected, but that has to be surely balanced against the damage that offensive speech causes. The Justice Committee heard from those representing minority communities who emphasised the very damaging impact that hateful language and behaviour have in undermining and destabilising our diverse communities. I am sorry, I must make some progress. The act provides extra-territorial powers ensuring that freedom of movement does not mean escaping the law. Section 6 brings Scotland into line with the rest of the UK in relation to incitement to religious hatred, ensuring that religious communities in Scotland have as much protection as they do in the rest of the UK. Those powers will be lost, Presiding Officer, if the act is repealed. We have heard that the act breaches human rights. The bill was certified as being within the legislative competence of the Parliament, which includes compliance with convention when it was introduced and has been a legal challenge in the courts on the grounds that it breaches human rights in all the time that it has been enforced. The act for a breakdown of relations between the act and the police, yet the evidence to commit that there have been no deterioration of the relationship with the police perspective. If the act is repealed, the evidence to the Justice Committee suggests that there will be no change to operational politics. Also, the Justice Committee for producing what is a very thorough piece of work. I am considering action in response, but I can confirm that my officials have already been instructed to look at the scope for creating a legal definition of sectarianism, and we will report on that in due course. The Justice Committee report notes that those against repeal think that the act should be amended. We have been consistently clear in our commitment to work with those who have concerns, and the party still wishes to pursue the amendment route that the door remains open. The Scottish Government is also conscious of the will of Parliament. If that will is to support the principles of the repeal bill, then it is entirely responsible for us—indeed, it is our duty—to make sure that the implications of the bill are fully and that the act is taken to mitigate the impact of any law on the result of the repeal. Equality groups have been very clear that they place great importance in the protection that the act offers them. It is absolutely right that we look at constructive ways to ensure that support for repeal does not leave them feeling exposed and unprotected. If the bill is passed at stage 1, the Scottish Government would seek to ensure that there is a continuity of protection for minority communities. We would certainly hope that even the most strident support of repeal would wish to work constructively with us to build a consensus to put in place protections for all vulnerable communities ahead of repeal, including considering a delay in the implementation of the bill if necessary to allow us the time to do so. In particular, the loss of section 6 powers would be worrying for those communities as they are concerned about the possibility of their children, families and friends being exposed to online abuse, and it is right that that is addressed through legislation. Simply going back to where we were before the act was introduced is retrograde and counterproductive, and we will do nothing to tackle abusive behaviour at football or protect vulnerable communities. Repealing the act with no viable alternative will do nothing to help us to build the country that we aspire to be. Regrettably, there will be negative consequences of repealing the act for our vulnerable communities, and I ask Parliament to reflect very carefully on what it is doing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Liam Kerr to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I open for the Scottish Conservatives to speak in favour of the principles of the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeal Scotland Bill. The 2012 act is bad law. On its progress through Parliament, the initial bill was met with criticism and disapproval from all opposition parties, who believed that the legislation was unfit and insistent. Almost five years later, it is clear that consensus remains. So much so that, in November 2016, a clear majority of MSPs voted to repeal the 2012 act as a matter of priority. During the stage 3 proceedings of the 2012 act, Roseanna Cunningham, then the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, said that the critical role for government is to ensure that law is fit for purpose. That legislation is not fit for purpose. A senior judge said that it was horribly drafted. Andrew Tickell told the committee that the act specifically instructs judges to completely ignore the actual context in which the behaviour takes place. That is perverse. Professor Sir Tom Devine has said that the 2012 act would go down in history as the most illiberal and counterproductive act passed by our young Parliament to date. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that restrictions of freedom of expression made the act contrary to human rights treaties. In 2014, it reported their concerns to the UN so that it could monitor whether the restrictions that are placed on freedom of speech are truly necessary in a democratic society. Is he arguing that there should be total freedom of speech and there should be no limits on any hatred or anything, either at football or elsewhere? Liam Kerr. On that specific point, I referred John Mason to the evidence of the committee when we heard some quite interesting information on that. I would say that we are dealing with a very specific act. As we will see in a second, it should be taken away for the reasons that I will come on to. I can easily get to a starting point that the law should not remain on the statute book, but I listened very carefully in committee and I reflected on a number of the concerns that were raised. I heard much concern about the message that would be sent if the act was repealed and note the important quotes in the committee's report. I asked myself, will that message be sent? Will ACC Higgins stated clearly that repealing the act might be interpreted by some as a lifting of the restrictions or it might not? Dr Joseph Webster said that repeal does not mean affirming the validity of the currently prescribed behaviour. He felt that the way in which repeal is perceived is all of our collective responsibility to deal with. He is right. It is all of our duty to send a message that hate crime is illegal and still will be after repeal. I thought that James Kelly made an important and persuasive point that the current message is weak in any event. To say that legislation should not be repealed because it might send a problematic message to potential offenders is not a good enough reason not to repeal it. What about the positive message that Paul Quigley of fans against criminalisation suggested would be sent? That football fans will no longer unfairly and unduly be criminalised as they have been under the 2012 act in the specific way that people in wider society are not. The second concern that I reflected upon was that there might be a legislative lacuna. Seven months ago Annabelle Ewing told this chamber that repealing the act in the absence of a viable alternative demonstrates contempt for those targeted. Correct. However, the committee heard from the Law Society of Scotland that all 287 charges brought under section 1 of the act in 2015-16 could have been prosecuted under pre-existing legislation. I would also point the member to the evidence given by the Crown Office and Procurator of Fiscal Service, which detailed exactly in the evidence where the issues of concern would arise. I am grateful for the intervention, and I would in turn point back to the evidence of ACC Higgins, who said in the absence of the act that someone who is arrested for singing an offensive song would almost certainly have been charged with a breach of the peace or a section 38 offence. Professor Fiona Leverick agreed, stating that the common law crime of breach of the peace, section 38 and a number of statutory aggravations are in place and continue to be, and that offensive behaviour at football matches could be dealt with under pre-2012 legislation. My final concern was around that. Has it worked? Dr John Kelly told the committee that since the 2012 act came in, there have actually been more of what the Scottish Government might define as problematic songs. Dr Joseph Webster said that what fans have done is to change their behaviour by holding their hands in front of their mouths while singing certain songs in order to prevent CCTV from capturing them and singing them. They have replaced certain songs in chance with other words to try and skirt the law. Annabelle Ewing said clearly earlier on, sadly, we continue to see such behaviour at football. It is clear that she agrees that this is not working. Even if you feel that such chanting has diminished, Professor Fiona Leverick told the Justice Committee that it is impossible to tell whether that is because of the act because there are so many other factors. Correlation is not causation. The act has not brought about behavioural change of itself. It has not changed the underlying drivers of prejudice or discouraged the expression of offensive behaviour. It has redirected those behaviours, those prejudices, camouflaged them, but it has not stopped them. The 2015 Morrill report states that there is no single simple answer to deep-seated issues of social division such as sectarianism and that the key to achieving real change is a balanced mix of community-led civil and government action. We need an enduring change in culture and attitude, but that happens in homes, classrooms and communities. It is facilitated by the work of charities and third sector organisations such as Nill by Mouth, and we need to see and support more of that community-led activity. I have heard the objections and I have reflected on them. I have dealt with those objections and the only plausible conclusion is that the 2012 act must be repealed. Therefore, the general principles of the bill are sound, and I shall vote accordingly today. This Parliament has a mixed reputation when it comes to legislation. There are some who believe that that might be through structural problems, something to do with our constitution as a unicameral Parliament that has led to poor quality legislation, drafting areas or ill-thought-through laws being passed by this place. I welcome the reforms that the Presiding Officer has brought forward to improve our processes. Perhaps more post-legislative scrutiny will help to improve the quality of legislation coming from this Parliament. That might be a popular opinion to voice in this chamber, but it is one held by many people outside this Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a very particular form of post-legislative scrutiny. On this 2012 act, those critics have a point. It is a bad law, a bad law because it does not add to the existing law, something that has been pointed out by the law society. It is a bad law because it has sown division between those who feel targeted by the law and the police, and it is a bad law because it is too open to interpretation by individual police officers. I very much welcome the opportunity to look again at the 2012 act and take forward my colleague James Kelly's proposals to scrap the act. The arguments have been made very well by Mr Kelly, and I want to commend him for his stewardship of his member's bill to this stage. As someone who has just recently opened a consultation on a bill, I know how much work it has taken for both him and his staff to get to this stage. I would very much like to add my support to those arguments that Mr Kelly has made in his speech and to add the full support of the Labour benches to them. However, I want to take my speech in a slightly different direction and to refute some of the arguments that have been made against scrapping the act. First, there is an argument that we should wait until Lord Bracadale's review. Indeed, Margaret Mitchell made a good comment about this. The Lord Bracadale's review into the hate crime legislation is waiting until it is complete. However, Lord Bracadale's review is explicit in being run in parallel with the bill's passage through Parliament. Indeed, Lord Bracadale himself has explicitly stated in his consultation paper that the recommendations will take into account the law as it exists or it is anticipated at that point. We await Lord Bracadale's recommendations with interest and look forward to seeing how this Parliament can look to improve our hate crime legislation. However, using Lord Bracadale's review to hold up scrapping of the act would be spurious at best. Indeed, the Justice Committee's report states that it would not be appropriate to delay consideration of the bill on those grounds. Second, there is an argument that there will be a gap in the law created by scrapping the act. However, that simply is not the case. Academics, including Professor Leverick, have argued that common law breach of the peace, section 38, and a number of statutory aggravations should be used if the act were to be scrapped. Indeed, the Law Society, as I alluded to, argued that the 2012 act did not improve on the existing common law and the existing statutory law, and it said that it is not of the view that its repeal will leave a gap in the criminal law. Ms Ewing would like to say why they are wrong, so I would be grateful to hear it. I point the member to the evidence of the Crown and Office and Procreative Fiscal Service, which he can read in the Justice Committee evidence sessions. However, the repeal will remove section 6, which is therefore removing the specific offence of incitement to religious hatred from Scots law. Does the member feel that that sends a good signal to society? Daniel Johnson Again, all the minister can point to is the signal. The point is that that section is ineffective and has been pointed out on a number of occasions. The fact that it can really only be used in a handful of cases and the fact that so many people have pointed to the threshold being too high should allow the minister to realise that it is simply ineffective. Indeed, back to the previous point, the Law Society of Evidence states very clearly that all 377 charges under the act in 2016 could have been captured by pre-existing legislation. Therefore, it is not just academics and lawyers saying that the police themselves have said that. Indeed, in their evidence, they said that repeal will not pose a significant operational change. They said that they would address the behaviour using other legislation. The Assistant Chief Constable went on to say that regarding boots on the ground and how football matches are policed little if anything would change. Let us not delay this decision, where no gap is created in the law. There is no impact on Lord Bracadale's review. The third argument is that there are arguments regarding the message that it would send out. Legislation, as we know, is not just about what is passed but what the message to society is. Laws are led by and lead societal change. The 2012 act had a clear message. It was very clearly designed to show that the action would be taken on sectarianism. What message does repeal in 2012 act send? I would argue that it sends this message. It shows that this is a responsible Parliament, fixing the problems that are created by poor legislation and scrapping a law that overly focuses on a particular group in society when the problems are part of much wider societal issues. I do not really feel out of time, Mr Dorn. I apologise. This will only send a message about the acceptance of sectarianism if we let it. Throughout the passage of Mr Kelly's bill, Labour has continued to argue that sectarianism is a blight on our country that shames us all. It is unacceptable and it should not happen. We must tackle the issue yet, but through education, particularly with young people, we should work with football clubs and fans to change their views. We will not allow anyone therefore to portray the scrapping of this act as sending out a message that sectarianism is acceptable or that we are not keen to tackle it. Most importantly, my party in this Parliament is united in our belief that action must be taken, but that does not justify an unworkable, illiberal, poorly drafted law remaining on the books. In conclusion, the arguments put forward by the opponents to this bill simply do not hold up. There is no need to wait for Lord Brackdale's review. There is no gap created in the legislation. There is no suggestion that by repealing this law that we will send any other message other than that. That is a bad law and we should scrap it. It is drafting, it is controversy, it is failure to do more than the existing laws have helped to discredit it. This Parliament has already voted in a motion in 2016 that is called on the Government to scrap the act. The Justice Committee has now delivered a report that agrees with that. Mr Kelly's proposal is simple, scrap the act and I urge all members to vote for stage 1 of this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. I now move to the open debate speeches of five minutes, though there is a little time in hand for interventions that you can make up. I call George Adam to be followed by Maurice Corry. Mr Adam, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Listening to the debate so far, there has been much made of the 3,000 fans who engaged with the process. However, if you look at the recent figures for just the Scottish Premiership, the average weekly attendance is 193,220. Even looking at the Premiership, that is 1.5 per cent of football fans who have engaged with this whole scenario. We have to balance this and look at it from that perspective as well. At this point, I also put on the record that I am the convener of the St Murden Independent Supporters Association, who has a 28 per cent share of St Murden FC. My explanation for that is as well because I am a great believer in fan empowerment. The whole idea of that programme is that, after a 10-year period, the fans and the community in Paisley will own their professional football club. For me, that is one of the most important parts in football, and it is the fans that are involved at football at all levels. However, in football itself, it is the great peli—in my opinion, the greatest player in the world that has ever seen—that coined the phrase, the beautiful game. At its core, there is no better explanation or description for football. All the world over football fans will support, argue and discuss every aspect of the game. As the game, when it is played at its best, there is no other sport that can compete. However, that passion, that spirit for the game, can at times descend into a nasty place. I have come to this debate and dealt with it first and foremost as a football fan. Football is in my DNA, or, more accurately, my football club is. The team in Paisley is actually termed as one town, one team, and that is how many non-football-supporting buddies look at it, and it is how other supporters in the towns of other teams look at it as well. It is a football fan that I have seen how a minority of fans can ruin the beautiful game for others and become abusive and threatening. During the Justice Committee evidence sessions, I brought up continually why the act came into place, what had happened within and out with our national game. There was an air of menace connected with some games that spilled out into normal day-to-day life, and I have explained that repealing the act sends an entirely wrong message to those who seek to be offensive at football. All the old song sheets will be dusted off in anticipation for the repeal. In 21st century Scotland, is that really the place that we want to be? I will take Mr Kerr. Thanks for taking the intervention. Does George Adam agree that the old song sheets have merely been updated and that people cover their mouths with their hands to sing the same songs? It is wrong, and even Mr Kelly during his evidence said that it is wrong for a football fan not to sing a song that is not about football. Anything that is not connected to the game should not be at a football match. The offensive behaviour at football and threatening communication criminalise hateful, threatening and offensive behaviour that is likely to initiate public disorder in relation to football. I do not see why that is a problem. As a fan, I give you a very personal example. In 2010, I witnessed an example of offensive behaviour, which I found disgusting. Many will be aware that my wife, Stacey, is a fanatical Sutman fan and has multiple sclerosis. As such, she is a wheelchair user. Some fans had tickets for some away fans and tickets for the Sutman end, and at the end of the game, things turned nasty. Stacey had what she believed was a reason to have a discussion with an away fan. Only to hear a Celtic fan shout, will someone shut that up and I will clean it up at this stage. The situation descended into chaos. Fans were found on both sides, which is totally unacceptable. Do we believe that it is right for football fans to express themselves in this manner? The act still allows fans to express themselves, but not in an offensive manner. Those who report this appeal believe that a football fan can sing and do what they like at a game. One of the academics, who strongly supports Mr Kelly's bid for appeal, Stuart Weighton, provided evidence to the committee, which in itself was shocking. In his verbal evidence, he continued to state that fans can sing what they like as often as they like and have the right to do so at football. In a book that he wrote, which he called Football Hooliganism, fans' behaviour and crime, he contributed to, perhaps more problematic. We now have a law in Scotland that could be used to target anything about a reasonable person who would find offensive at a football match, and yet football, in many respects, is all about being offensive. For me, there is a big difference between the passion for the game and the competitiveness involved in supporting your team than being offensive to someone at football. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities agreed with me in their written evidence. They were concerned that the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 1998 would send exactly the wrong message. We urge the extension rather than the repeal of the legislation, but I am not blind to the fact that the act needs to be reviewed. That is why, at stage 1, I report to my colleagues and ask the Scottish Government to take another look at the act. Thank you. I'm afraid you must conclude. I gave you a little extra time. I'm just concluding, Presiding Officer. That means concluding. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Maureen Watt and Maurice Corry, please. Let's keep the act. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Sectarian behaviour and hate crime have no place at football games or in general Scottish society. Sectarianism has for far too long been a blight on Scottish life and has been allowed to fester and create deep wounds within our communities. The way that we shall fight and end sectarianism in Scotland is by changing our culture and changing attitudes towards it. That will take place in homes, classrooms and communities, the length and breadth of our country. In each situation, the action required will be different as sectarianism has taken on different guises in each community in Scotland, which it affects. No single solution will fix every problem and that work is already under way. It has been undertaken by a huge swath of charities and third sector organisations. What we need is to see more support for that kind of work, not unnecessary legislation, which adds nothing to the fight against sectarianism. That is what offensive behaviour football act is, unnecessary. It is a politician's way of looking as though they are trying to tackle the issue without really tackling the causes head on. It has and will not help to tackle sectarianism in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland concluded that the new offence did not improve on existing offences and that all 287 charges brought under section 1 of legislation 2015-16 could have been prosecuted under a pre-existing legislation, as my colleague Liam Kerr has already stated. It concluded that the act has not been fundamental to tackling sectarianism and I agree with that interpretation. The pre-existing offences such as breach of the peace and threatening of abusive behaviour already covered the types of offences that the act was designed to tackle. The real tragedy about the offensive behaviour at football act is that it was a wasted opportunity. It came at a time when the issues that often surround football in Scotland were flaring up badly, both on the terraces and on the pitch. It has become accepted that something needed to be done, but the answer was not and never will be to railroad knee-jerk legislation through Parliament and try to arrest our way out of sectarianism. This was pointed out by the Assistant Chief Constable Higgins when he spoke to the Justice Committee and said, and I quote, I cannot arrest my way out of changing hate crime and sectarianism in this country, a far wider approach is needed to challenge behaviour that is inappropriate. What should have happened was engagement with a vast majority of civilised, law-abiding football fans in this country rather than illiberal legislation that has left them feeling persecuted and being blamed for the actions of a minority. They feel persecuted because they are being singled out as the only problem area in Scotland. Andrew Jenkins of Supporters Direct Scotland said, and I quote, you cannot have legislation that applies to one specific sector of society that is grossly unfair. The consultation on the legislation sowed these feelings. A huge number of stakeholders took part in more than 3,200 football clubs and members, as we have already heard, of the public. The result showed that 71 per cent of respondents backed the repeal of sections 1 to 5 and 62 per cent supported the repeal of sections 6 to 9. That is not because they are not committed to fighting sectarianism, but because they see this bill as doing nothing to help fighting. In conclusion, it is for those reasons that I have aforementioned, as I should be voting for the repeal of the offensives behaviour at football and threatening communications brackets Scotland bill. A bit of a mouthful that for you, Mr Corry, at the end. I call Mary Gougeon to be followed by Mary Fee. I am always grateful for my time on the Justice Committee because of the sheer level and scale of the different items that we look at. To be honest, the offensives behaviour at football and the repeal of that act has been no different in that sense, because I would not say that I regularly attend football games. I am a Breakin City supporter who, unfortunately, took on Celtic at the weekend and did not come out of that game too favourably. However, if there is one positive of the process of going through the scrutiny of the repeal bill, the fact that it is given the Justice Committee and this Parliament a chance to scrutinise the original act, its operation and the impact that it has had since its introduction in 2012, and I genuinely welcome the opportunity to have done that. I would say that I disagree with the Justice Committee's final conclusions and that I do not support the general principles of the repeal bill because of the message that I believe that that sends out. At the same time, that is not to say that I think that the 2012 act is perfect, but I think that the best way to deal with that is to amend it and not to repeal it. We received a great deal of evidence, both written and oral, during the course of the committee's scrutiny. I want to thank all those who submitted evidence to the committee, with many contrasting and contradictory opinions apparent right from the outset. We heard evidence from the Glasgow Bar Association, who felt that in terms of section 6, they said that the power in section 6, threatening communication, is not being used because of the narrow scope of the section and its wording, which they say makes the police not feel comfortable using it. To that extent, I would agree with some of the points that James Kelly made early on when he said that the intention is there, but it has proven hard to implement. That may be the case, but I think that the best way to deal with that, if he agrees that it is well intended and that there is work to be done there, is to amend it so that it does work, not to remove it with nothing in its place in case I missed any alternatives in his speech, as I was listening. One thing that I really want to go through here is the evidence that we heard from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the three areas where they talked about section 6. He said that, first, one of the pieces of logic behind section 6 was that it would address the debate in connection with the communications act of 2003. That was whether or not you could be prosecuted for scent communications or whether that included either threatening behaviour on forums and blogs. The principal benefits of section 6 are in relation to its extra-territorial provisions. In the third point, section 6 also provides for greater sentencing powers than those in the 2003 act. He said that we have had a case in which an accused person posted comments that were supportive of a prescribed terrorist organisation, ISIS, and the view of the sentencer was that the severity of those actions should be reflected in the starting point of 24 months imprisonment. That starting point for the sentencer would not have been available in the alternative charge under the 2003 act. As you can see, we did not hear any alternatives coming from James Kelly. I am seriously concerned that the appealing of that section of the act with nothing in its place, the impact that that can have in Scotland. Another area that I would like to cover is when we heard from third sector organisations and charities about the message that the appealing of the act would send out. We heard from Stonewall, who told us that for LGBT people, football is a sport in which they do not feel safe or secure, whether that is because of chanting or comments that are made in the stands. He also told us that repealing the act without putting other measures in place could undermine the work that has been undertaken by organisations such as Stonewall Scotland, the equality network, football clubs, Police Scotland and the criminal justice agencies to increase LGBT people's confidence, not only in reporting hate crime but in attending sporting events such as football. In specifically relating to section 6, he said that we would oppose an appeal of section 6, which provides important protection for LGBT people who are currently experiencing an increase in abusive and threatening communications online. We strongly believe that condition B of section 6 of the 2012 act should be extended to include disability, sexual orientation, transgendered identity and race. Of those characteristics, only race is currently covered by other legislation and Stonewall is covered by no means alone. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and leave not only a gap in the legislation but also fail the wide number of groups who feel protected by the act. Just to summarise, I would use the words of Andrew Tickell of Glasgow Caledonian University, who said that legal criticisms of great parts of the 2012 act are very well founded. Parliament should respond to those failures in the bill by amending it and fixing the problems, rather than repealing it. As I said at the start, I do not think that you will find one person in here who will tell you, after considering all the evidence, that the 2012 act is a perfect piece of legislation, but the way to deal with that is to amend it, not to repeal it. I am pleased to speak in favour of James Kelly's bill to repeal the flawed and illiberal offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications act 2012. A piece of legislation that was forced through by the SNP Government, the first act of this Scottish Parliament to gather absolutely no support from opposition parties. It is clear that a wholly joined up approach, which includes schools, colleges, football clubs, leisure clubs and law enforcement, starting in early years education, is the key to being proactive in tackling sectarianism. Let me be clear at the outset, I take a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of sectarian or offensive behaviour. I have been a victim of sectarian abuse on more than one occasion, and none of those were within the context of a football match. The most vitriolic of those episodes ended up in court because of the laws already in place prior to the 2012 act. My son and I were subjected to vile and sectarian language and racial abuse outside of my own home. The individual concerned was charged with both racially aggravated breach of the peace and aggravated sectarian breach of the peace. On both charges, the individual was found guilty and given a substantial fine. Those same laws will be used to tackle offensive and sectarian behaviour, occurring at football, as they would have been without the 2012 act. That has been confirmed by Police Scotland during the Justice Committee's evidence sessions when Assistant Chief Constable Higgins said that someone singing an offensive song would be charged with breach of the peace or a section 38 offence. The Law Society of Scotland and Professor Fiona Leverick said that we are of the view that the common law crime of breach of the peace, section 38 and a number of statutory aggravations are in place and continue to be, and that offensive behaviour at football matches could be dealt with under pre-2012 legislation. Therefore, it is clear that there will be no gap in the law, as has been claimed by the Scottish Government and SNP MSPs. The targeting of football fans is unjust and illiberal. The 2012 act has damaged relations between fans and police. That was a predominant theme that emerged from our evidence sessions with both fans groups and from our written evidence. Paul Goodwin highlighted the horrific public relations of the act. As we can all recall, the 2012 act was rushed, and the Scottish Government, using its majority, forced this bill through Parliament. As Stuart Regan of the Scottish National Party pointed out, there is no similar summit called for each year after teen the park. Despite the high level of disorder, offensive and criminal behaviour of festival goers, no other sport or cultural event has gained a watchful eye of the Scottish Government in that manner. Professor Leverick also informed the committee that nowhere else has specifically football-related criminal offences. Mary Gugion, I thank the member for taking that intervention. It is just really to address that point about legislation specifically targeting football, because how would the member respond to the fact that there are 87 pieces of legislation across the UK that are both primary and secondary that relate to football? Mary Fee, there is no specific piece of legislation similar to that act anywhere else in any legislator. That was made clear to us throughout our evidence sessions. Repealing the act will allow the police to monitor football matches in the same manner as any other sporting event using the exact same laws. I have great sympathy with Stonewall Scotland and other equality and religious groups who express concern that repeal could send the wrong message. To tackle that, we must be more supportive of programmes and campaigns that encourage diversity and respect in football and at all cultural events. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I would like to see a more inclusive approach taken by clubs, by supporters groups and by fans towards generating a more welcoming and a more family-orientated atmosphere in our sporting grounds. Tackling offensive and sectarian behaviour must continue through education. Education is a proactive measure, not a reactive measure, as the offensive behaviour at football act is. Rona Mackay can remind members of the intervened request to speak light goes off, so to check that you still have a red light in front of you, Mr Dornan. I think that it is true at the moment, but it happens to everyone. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by John Finnie. Today is the culmination of many years' evidence-taking, report reading and outreach visits to prepare for stage 1 of the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications Scotland repeal bill. I, too, would like to thank the clerks for all their hard work and organisation. As always, it was first class. I would also like to thank the many witnesses that took the time to give evidence in front of the Justice Committee. Clearly, that is a very contentious issue that has roused passionate opposition among some football fans, and I respect that. Having been born in Glasgow and growing up in the west of Scotland, I was always aware of the poisonous sectarian divides that have historically been the scourge of Scotland. In 2005, Labour First Minister Jack McConnell said, for far too long, bigoted sectarian behaviour has been a scar on Scottish life. Bigoted sectarian attitudes have no place in a 21st century Scotland. Now, I know that he wasn't just saying that sectarian attitudes were on display at football matches, but no one, not even our many passionate witnesses, could deny that sectarian behaviour did and does take place at football matches. I was at an old firm match last year as part of a Justice Committee evidence-taking visit and heard it for myself. That leads into the discussion. George Adam was clear on that point that the act has failed. The Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland group has also said that the act fails to tackle hate crime. Does the member support both of those views? I think that the act acknowledges that we have a huge problem, and to repeal it would be sending out entirely the wrong message. That leads into the discussion on how we define sectarianism, which is one of the recommendations made by the committee in the stage 1 report, and something that the Government will consider should the bill progress to stage 2. Like my colleagues, I certainly do not believe that this legislation is perfect by any means. However, I do not believe outright repeal with nothing to replace it is the answer for several reasons that I will go on to outline. I believe that the bill could be amended to address the issues in section 1, which most repeal supporters object to. Of course, it would be for the Government to instruct amendments, but perhaps the act could be extended to cover religious marches or gatherings where sectarian behaviour sometimes occurs, or sectarian behaviour happening at other events, as Mary Fee described. With careful consideration of the objections received, I am confident that a compromise could be achieved to avoid total repeal. I listened to James Kelly on television last night saying that he would work with the Government and others on alternative proposals, and I would hope that he could do that on amendments to the existing bill. My main reason for not supporting the total repeal of this act is that, as others have said, I believe that it will send out the wrong message to society. We have taken bold steps to show that Scotland is not living in the past, and to repeal the act in its entirety would, in my opinion, be a retrograde step. Furthermore, and crucially, the committee heard heartfelt evidence from Stonewall Scotland, Victim Support Scotland, the equality network, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and other churches, and the Scottish Women's Convention that they did not support repeal because the act comforted them and gave them a feeling of safety. I really do not think that you can ignore evidence from respected bodies like that. We all know that the majority of football fans go to a match to watch the game and cheat on their team, so the act does not concern them. I have asked friends who I know of 10 football regularly, and all bar 1s were indifferent to whether the act was there or not. It is a vocal minority who opposed the act, and that is their right to do so. We have heard a lot about section 6 of the bill, and it is so important. I believe that there would be a gap in the law if that was thrown out with this bill. My colleague, Mary Gougeon, particularly outlined examples of that. Of course, there were divided opinions about that during evidence-taking, but again, the perception of throwing out a bill that condemns threatening communications, those very words, would send out a problematic message from this Parliament. In the committee's questionnaire to secondary schools, almost 66 per cent of pupils said that they had experienced online offensive behaviour, and that is a critical problem today. As has been said by the minister and others, if the repeal bill goes through today, I hope that there will be enough time to plug the holes in legislation that would occur following immediate repeal. In conclusion, I urge the chamber not to kill this bill, but to amend it to send out the strong message that Scotland has moved on and, in tolerant attitudes, has been consigned to history. Thank you very much. I call John Finnie to be followed by Liam McArthur. Mr Finnie, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interest in my various associations with Heartland Midlothian Football Club. The purpose of the committee's deliberations was to scrutinise Mr Kelly's bill. By default, we ended up effectively doing post-legislative scrutiny on the offensive behaviour and threatening communications. It was good scrutiny, and I would like to thank everyone who participated in that, and I would like to thank our clerks, and I would like to thank people for the briefings. It is certainly a view that my view is that that scrutiny found the previous legislation wanting and very clearly that Mr Kelly had made his case. In part, that has been acknowledged by all the speakers thus far, who no one has yet to stand up and say, yet no, it is fine as it is. I certainly support Mr Kelly's keenness to see the act repealed at the earliest opportunity, and I know the Scottish Green Party who have consistently opposed it, share that view too, and we will be voting accordingly at decision time tonight. In the short time there is, I would like to comment on one or two aspects. That is this perception often put about by people unconnected with football, that football fans are at war with the police. That is not the case. Indeed, it is not what we heard from the police that we heard, and I quote from our report. The committee also recognised that the number of football fans engaging in criminal behaviour is minimal, and welcomes the context that is provided by the SFA Police Scotland and Fans Group to demonstrate that. It is very important to put things into proportion. It is also very important to note that the most significant aspect of policing that is affected football is self-pleasing, and the tartan army is often talked about in relation to that. I think that there was a very interesting debate about the right to offend, and I certainly hold views that others would find offensive. There are a lot of people that hold mainstream views that I find deeply offensive. I think that that is a debate for another time. We are dealing with a specific piece of legislation. The peculiarity of the section 6 offence is that people have talked about it being bolted on to a specific piece of football legislation, in which that particular aspect has a wider application. I want to quote from very valued witnesses that I often find myself quoting from in relation to legislation, and I thank them for their briefings and their evidence. The first is the law society. In its evidence about the gap in the law, it makes it very clear that relation to section 1, and the quote is a very specific stated case, Mark Harris vs Her Majesty's Advocate dated 2009, where it goes into the detail of section 38 of the Criminal Justice Licence to Scotland Act 2010, which has been alluded to by other members. It shows the ability of the criminal law to address the types of behaviour that the 2012 act has sought to address, and we do not believe that the section 1 offence has improved the common law breach of the piece or section 38 and are not of the view that this repeal would fill a gap. Of course, the most significant one is in relation to section 6, making threatening communications. We did receive a lot of information on that. I am going to not quote verbatim from the law society's evidence, but I tally it up as six pieces of legislation starting with the common law breach of the piece. Section 38 talks about the Public Order Act, the Criminal Justice Scotland Act, the Crime and Disorder Act and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Again, I do quote, we do not believe that section 6 offence has improved upon the common law and laws based in statute to address this type of behaviour and are not of the view that its repeal will leave a gap in the criminal law. I thank the member for taking that intervention. I just wonder how he would address the very specific points that I raised earlier and that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service brought up in their speech about where section 6 tidied up grey areas of the law in the Communications Act 2003. What will we do if that is repealed? Where do we go from here? John Finnie? I commend Professor Llyverick's evidence about some alterations that could be made, and you will be familiar with that. In the very short time I have left, I want to talk touch on the issue of Stonewall. Stonewall is an organisation that, again, I plate grace store in their views. I think that what their members have faced at football is unacceptable, but we know that the fact that it is accepted is not withstanding the legislation being in place. I commend the approach. The consensus on the committee was that sectarianism and abuse of this nature will be addressed by education. That is what I would commend. I would also approach the rainbow laces initiative. I want to, in the very short time, say probably the most compelling piece of evidence for me, and that was the Scottish Roman Rights Commission. When you have an esteemed organisation like that saying that commission considers a strong likelihood that key provisions of the act fall short of the principle of legal certainty and the requirement of lawfulness, that, for me, is damning to the previous legislation. Finally, I would like to say that we will have to look ahead. Looking ahead, I would commend another organisation in their work, which is SACRO, and it referred to its stock, which was SACRO, Tackling Offending Prejudice Services. Alternatives to prosecution that that could be and the fact that early intervention to address this connected with education is the way ahead. We will be sporting, Mr Kelly. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When we had this debate in November 2016, I called for the Government's discredited offensive behaviour at Football Act to be sent for an early bath on that occasion. Parliament agreed. Since then, for me, the evidence received by the Justice Committee has by enlarged reinforced that view. I am certainly grateful to all those who took the time to share with us their insights on whatever side of the argument that they fell, as well as to committee clerks, vice and committee colleagues. Of course, repeal of the act is not an ending of itself. Efforts to combat the stain of sectarianism must be redoubled, as do our wider efforts to crack down on hate crime more generally. As the advisory group on tackling sectarianism made clear, the foundations for change rest on initiatives that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding, recognising that councils, churches, football groups, schools, the media, community organisations are all key in delivering effective grassroots solutions. Our stage 1 report puts up front our collective condemnation of sectarianism and hate crime, a consistent message that has been sent out by this Parliament over its lifetime. To those concerned that repeal dilutes or undermines that message, I offer reassurances that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will always support effective evidence-based measures to tackle hate crime. However, what we will not do is stand by while counterproductive quick fixes are put in place to garner headlines but which undermine genuine efforts to tackle those complex problems. I also struggle to accept that the wrong message is sent by repealing an act that, as we heard repeatedly, does not in fact provide the protections that its supporters claim. We do no one any favours by leaving unchallans that sort of false comfort and confidence. Have you, apparently, shared by Bemis and the Coalition for Racial Equality? I'll give way to James Dornan. James Dornan But surely nobody's asking you to leave it unchallans. Surely what people are asking you to do is suggest something to put in its place, to say that the only method of dealing with this is to repeal a bill and leave gaps no matter what's been said from that side of the chamber is surely wrong. Liam McArthur I think that Mr Dornan, with all due respect, has not listened to what it is that I have said. To provide false comfort and certainty through legislation that is ill-judged, that is mis-targeted and is actually damaging those relationships seems to me something that Parliament should be resisting at all costs. A distinction, I accept, must be made between the nature and effect of sections 1 and section 6 of the 2012 act. I have some sympathy for those concerned about repeal of the latter and will come to this in due course, but no such qualms exist over repeal of section 1. The reason, no doubt, that one judge described this act as, quote, mince. Time and again, we heard criticism of the legislation as ill-conceived, a knee-jerk reaction to albeit reprehensible scenes at an old-form game and other serious incidents at the time. Railroaded through Parliament by a First Minister deaf to the concerns about a lack of compelling evidence that the tools at the disposal of the police, courts and our judicial system were inadequate. Deaf also to concerns about the impact that the legislation would have had on relationships between football fans and the police. Criminalising one section of society in one set of circumstances no-one won't, while leaving wide open what constitutes offensive behaviour was unjustified, illiberal and dubious in terms of human rights. Should it be repealed, there will be no gap in the law. Breach of the peace and other powers exist and will be used, as various expert witnesses told us, including Police Scotland. You can address it in winding up minister. Plugging a gap that does not exist is that best gesture politics and now faced with the prospect of defeat over repeal, SNP ministers offer talks on how best to clear up the mess they created, a desperate injury time bid to save face. Of course Lord Bracadale's on-going review is welcome and will help us in the way we tackle the wider hate crime issues in future. The idea, however, that we should hold off taking action on the 2012 act until Lord Bracadale has completed his report is misplaced. Indeed, I suspect that it is not a view shared by Lord Bracadale himself. Even if he reports later this year, his recommendations won't find a way into a draft bill, let alone on to the statute books for years. As I pointed out in committee, only now is the Civil Litigation Bill taking forward proposals in Sheriff's Principal Taylor's 2013 report. Meantime, the damage being done by this illiberal piece of legislation, notably section 1, demands attention. As I said earlier, section 6 does present more nuanced arguments. The provisions on threatening communications have the benefit, at least, of applying across the board rather than just one section of society on one particular day. Although the powers have not been greatly used, that is more of a case for saying that a gap might exist upon repeal. The concerns of various religious groups appear to relate more to section 6 and are persuaded that, at stage 2, we need to look at how any repeal might be time to avoid any hiatus. Parliament must again send out a strong message today that hate crime in all its forms is unacceptable. However, that is achieved not by pretending that complex issues can be addressed through oversimplified solutions. The Scottish National Party's approach to legislation often seems to be summed up by the view that, if the only tool that you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail. However, to those who are using the borders of repeal are apologised for their turn-inism, you'll go on. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee, I would also like to pass thanks on to colleagues, our clerks and all the witnesses that gave evidence. Like many people in Scotland and around the world, I love football. I loved playing it, growing up at primary schools, secondary schools, university and club level. Some of my friends were professionals and I still really enjoy a kick about and going to watch matches when I can. Football is absolutely a beautiful game and everyone should be able to enjoy watching and playing it without experiencing offensive behaviour or intimidation. Although the majority of football fans are respectful and well behaved, football can, of course, have a negative and polarising effect on people and their communities, and unfortunately that is still the case here in times in Scotland. Let me be clear that the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communication Scotland Act 2012, not the football act, as it has been erroneously referred to, is not perfect and it is not a panacea. One thing that has become clear during the Justice Committee's recent deliberations on the current legislation is that the 2012 act could certainly benefit from review and reform. However, what is equally clear is that repealing the 2012 act without a viable alternative would be irresponsible and reckless, because it is a useful set of powers for police and prosecutors. As law lecturer Andrew Tickle astutely said, repealing the 2012 act would be like using a sledgehammer for a task for which a scalpel is better devised. Johann Lamont The Parliament voted a year ago to express its view that the bill should be repealed. Is it not irresponsible of the minister not to have brought a review of the legislation before now to address the concerns that you have? Ben Macpherson The meaningful and constructive thing to do is exactly what the Government has to do, which is to conduct a review of hate crime legislation as a whole and reflect on that evidence thereafter and look at how we can bring forward something comprehensively. The responsible thing to do would be a reckless play in terms of full repeal of the act, which will leave a gap in the law in section 6. As I see it, repealing the act would not be in the interests of the common good, but neither would leaving the 2012 act unamended in its current form in the medium to long term. In my view, we should be debating how to reform the 2012 act and make it more effective, and the repeal bill brought forward by Mr Kelly is a destructive measure, and I will not be voting in favour of the principles of it today. If the bill does pass stage 1, he and many others may see it as scoring a crafty goal against the SNP, such as a poacher on the six-yard line, but such populism is irresponsible and unhelpful. It would certainly be irresponsible if his bill were rushed through, and in good faith, I ask him not to rush through it without adequate time for authorities to prepare for a post-2012 act landscape. There are many reasons to retain the current legislation. For example, it is supported by most people in Scotland. 83 per support legislation to tackle offensive behaviour of football and 80 per cent support the act directly. Removing section 6 would create a gap in the law, particularly in terms of the fact that it criminalises threats made by the intent of citing religious hatred, something that was not previously in Scots law. Section 6 has extra territorial application, which would be unavailable to prosecutors if the 2012 act was repealed. We should also listen to stakeholder groups who have expressed concerns about repeal of the 2012 act. I could quote many from the evidence that we have taken, but I will just be very brief because my time is running out. In the words of the Church of Scotland, repealing the 2012 act without replacement would be a symbol that our elective representatives do not think that behaving offensively or sending threatening communications is problematic. In the words of the Scottish Jewish Communities, repeal of the Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act would send exactly the wrong message. Reform and amending the 2012 act would make a meaningful and constructive difference. Repealing it without a viable alternative would be reckless and irresponsible. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by John Mason. Mr Whittle, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Firstly, it is important to recognise that although progress has been made in recent years, Scotland does have an issue with sectarianism as well as other offensive behaviours, which has been highlighted in this debate. Those of us who have witnessed first-hand old-form matches over the years and other football matches cannot fail to be aware of the kind of behaviour that we are discussing today. The reality is, of course, that this behaviour is not confined to the terraces. Let's be clear from the outset that this behaviour is not only unwelcome and unacceptable in a modern Scotland, but also the law states that any such behaviour that causes personal offence, be it sectarianism, homophobic or racially motivated, is a breach, and as such, the perpetrators can and should be charged appropriately. However, the needier reaction after a particularly fiery old-form game by the then First Minister Alex Salmond when he said that something must be done led to legislation that is poorly written and therefore difficult to enforce in law. We all agree—I'll tell everyone. Annabelle Ewing. I'm very grateful to the member. I think it's important to remember and recall that, of course, the game to which he refers was not the catalyst, but in fact was the tip of the iceberg. We saw also the sending of explosive devices through the posts to various figures, and we saw death threats against new linens. I think that it's important to just remember the context here. Brian Whittle. What we're talking about here is the context of offensive behaviour, which has sectarianism specifically within the old-form matches has been going on for a very long time. What I'm suggesting to you is that progress has been made. We still have some way to go, but progress has been made. As I said before, that behaviour at football, as in any other situation, is reprehensible and should be dealt with as such. No matter the good intentions or otherwise of the First Minister, bad law is bad law. Where the implementation of law is problematic, it has to be questioned. Relevance has to be questioned, especially when the law already caters for those issues. The offensive behaviour at football focuses on behaviours at a specific event. The reality is that that behaviour is a societal issue and not specific to football. By singling out that behaviour over the 90 minutes of sport, I believe that it detracts from the overarching issue. We all agree that that has to be tackled, but whether there is a law already applicable, the focus should be on how we better address, educate and change that behaviour in our schools, in our playgrounds and in our communities. The fact that that kind of behaviour manifests itself in a more focused and public way when crowds of people turn up at a football ground and shout at each other for 90 minutes while a football match is going on in the background shouldn't disguise the fact that it goes on in our communities just the same. Should we be asking football clubs to do more? Absolutely. They have a significant part to play and that should be an on-going process. Should we attempt to single out and disproportionately penalise a certain section of society because we can and perhaps because it highlights that we are at least tempted to do something? I believe not. If we agree that policing by consent is desirable, I also believe that the 2012 act is contrary to that ethos. Police on the ground are finding it difficult to consistently apply and if that is the case, it is time to have a rethink. As the bill was progressing through Parliament, as has already been said, opposition parties were critical of the bill, believing that the legislation was unfair, unworkable and inconsistent. With the bill now in place, that consensus has been reflected on the ground by those who have to attempt to implement that law. Roseanna Cunningham, the then minister for community safety and legal affairs, said quite rightly that the critical role of government is to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. However, when a senior judge said that the legislation was and I quote, horribly drafted, and that the act specifically instructs judges to completely ignore the actual context in which the behaviour takes place and that it was perverse, it is obvious that the bill has missed the mark set by Roseanna Cunningham. There is a worry that scrapping the act will send a message that this kind of behaviour is somehow acceptable. I would argue that, by targeting football supporters specifically, it helps to perpetuate sectarianism. We recently lost a pioneer in tackling racism in sport in Cyril Regis during the late 1970s. Him and two of his cohorts, Laurie Cunningham and Brendan Batson, were part of a football club at West Brom, as I will be aware. On the terracing, racism was rife and obvious. However, through a enduring education and positive reinforcement, that kind of blatant racism is unthinkable today, and change can be made without the need for this kind of legislation. I would argue that an educational approach is far more effective. It is entirely right that this Parliament should vigorously pursue methods to eradicate hate crimes for good wherever they occur, in fact, before they occur. However, if the act is ineffective against its objectives and when human rights of the act are brought into question, it is time for a rethink. Bad law is bad law and the Scottish National Party Government needs to heed the mounting evidence and repeal the act. We are clearly debating a very hot topic today, covering offensive behaviour at football, but we are also touching on issues from 500 years ago with the reformation and subsequent wars and persecution of a whole range of people throughout Europe in the name of Christianity. I first say how disappointing it is that sectarianism and related issues have developed, despite the fact that Jesus himself prayed that his followers would be one united in their love and commitment to him. I think that we should acknowledge that, in the west of Scotland, there has been a history of sectarianism, anti-Catholicism and anti-Irish racism. The Catholic or Irish minority has been badly treated and that has left scars, and we cannot ignore that as we move forward. As has been said in the past, this is a subject that Scotland has been nervous talking about, and I would pay tribute to Donald Gorry of the Lib Dems and Jack McConnell of Labour, who have said that we must face up to this issue since the Parliament was re-established in 1999. After a period of less activity for a while, the SNP felt that we had to do something, and I think that that was absolutely correct. Clearly, the previous common statutory law was not working, and I fully support the decision that legislation was needed. However, I accept that the bill was too rushed. A problem of 500 years standing could not be sorted in one year, and I also accept that I, as a backbencher, should probably have questioned the timescale however I was new in 2011 and I failed to do that. However, we are where we are now, and as the committee itself heard, there is a danger that repeal it sends out the message that any songs, any chants, any expressions of hatred are acceptable at football. Neil Findlay said exactly the point that when you have an unquestioning group of backbenchers who never question anything, we bring in bad law. John Mason? If the member knew me, he would know that I have questioned a few things, and both the present and the previous First Ministers have had me in their offices shouting at me. To move on, one point that I agree with in the report is that there should be a definition of sectarianism. By sectarianism, I am including anti-arish racism and anti-catholicism, but it is a bit of a mouthful to say every time. I felt that the definition of Duncan Morro's advisory group was very good, especially in their interim report. I would like to deal with one or two points that have been raised with me during this process. One, why is football targeted? One of the answers for that is that 88 per cent of the public, when asked about sectarianism, link it with football. Secondly, because I would suggest that some people behave worse at football than they do in other parts of their lives. I myself attend football and I see folk who appear to behave very well elsewhere, behaving a lot worse at matches. No, I am sorry, I have taken one. I see fans being ejected from games and sometimes suspended by a club, including my own Clyde, but whom I think could easily have been charged. I think that this legislation has been enforced extremely leniently, not least because the police cannot be expected to wade in and arrest 10,000 fans. In this regard, I think that Rangers and Celtic fans have been treated more leniently compared to fans at smaller clubs who are easier to deal with. The reason the incident of throwing plastic eyeballs onto the pitch to mock a disabled player does suggest that behaviour at football is worse and does need to be targeted. Two, something cannot be allowed in one place but not another. That is wrong. We allow drinking inside but we do not allow drinking out on the street. Alcohol is allowed in many places after 9pm but it is not allowed on trains. If we have a problem in a particular place, like at football, it is perfectly reasonable to tackle it at that place. Three, education is enough. Will I agree that education is part of the answer and a very important part? A book like Theresa Breslin's Divided City is great. It is used in schools and I have seen it performed by youngsters at the citizens' theatre. But education has not worked and I fear will not work without legislation as well. Smoking and alcohol abuse have needed legislation as well as education and I am convinced that sectarianism and hatred need legislation too. Four, what about marches? Will I agree that marches, in particular orange marches, do encourage hatred as well? The whole atmosphere in Glasgow is poisonous on the day of big orange marches and therefore I do hope that Lord Bracadale's wider review of hatred will cover the issue of marches as well. Five, is freedom of speech not important? Yes, freedom of speech is important. It is a great right, but it is not unfettered. Six, the offensive behaviour at football act is vague, but it is a lot less vague than breach of the peace. This act is not perfect. It has had some success in people being charged and in sending out a message that expressions of hatred, sectarianism, anti-Catholicism and anti-Irish racism are not acceptable in modern 2018 society. We take a grave risk of moving backwards if we repeal it and I strongly oppose James Kelly's bill. Joanne Lamont, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say that I'm happy to speak in this important debate? I should declare an interest. I'm a Celtic season ticket holder. My brother-in-law is a family arranger supporter and, for good measure, there is no greater fan of Kingsley than I am. I love football and many people across this country love football and are paying attention to this debate today. I was Labour's justice spokesperson when the debate on this bill emerged as a consequence of events at Rangers Celtic game. It was that specific. The then First Minister said that he would legislate by the start of the new season. A good sound by it, I guess, but soon it hardened into an impossible timetable with poor legislation, developed with little thought and even less clarity. Despite all the reservations that came from across the chamber, including SNP-backed benches, the First Minister did pause, but then chose to dig in rather than reach out to others who were concerned about football. I do not believe that there is anyone in this chamber who wants to celebrate sectarianism, who wants to hear racist or sexist or homophobic abuse at football or anywhere else, or would want to deny anyone protection from that abuse. It is not a debate about who cares most about that abuse. It is a matter of judgment seriously addressed. It is a judgment about whether this legislation makes things better or worse. I, as someone who has fought all my life for equality, take the view that it makes things worse. It is also not a bubble debate where we can somehow practice our outrage and demonise each other. The truth is that this bill is here not because of party interest, but because, out there in the real world, many, many serious people oppose it, have been victims of its lack of clarity or who see it as illiberal and ineffective. Members can demonise me, but they ought not to dismiss this astonishingly broad coalition of people who want it repealed. I notice that some have sought to personalise this to James Kelly, that he is irresponsible in taking this forward. I agree that James Kelly should not need to be doing this. For any responsible Scottish Government worthy of its name, seeing the injustices perpetrated in its name through this legislation and, given the widespread opposition to it in the Parliament and outside, would have already acted to repeal it themselves and ensure that there was a safety net if they perceived there to be a gap. There is no shame in admitting that you got it wrong, but there is shame in objurately refusing to listen. The strongest argument that I have heard against repeal is that it sends a message, but my problem is that it is not clear what that message is. For some, it sends very mixed message. In truth, it is difficult to know how to avoid prosecution under the legislation. I can say something in here without harm, but if I said at a football match, I could be prosecuted. I could say something in the pub with a television on, showing the football, and I could be prosecuted, but if somebody had switched it to the tennis, I could not be prosecuted. For all too many football fans, it sends out an all-too-clear message that football fans are uniquely offensive, given to racist, sexist, sectarian and homophobic abuse. Football fans, in truth, reflect our society, and we should be tackling abuse wherever it occurs. The abuse is the issue, not the venue. How do we get changed? By understanding how football has already changed. When I was young, I hate to tell the younger people here that Scottish football fans were horrible. The Tartan army transformed that into a group who are willing to celebrate football without being abusive. When I was one young, I watched Mark Walters, Rangers' first black player at Celtic Park. I was ashamed to see Celtic fans throwing bananas onto the pitch, and indeed my own husband wrote to Celtic View to insist that fans desist. That would not happen now, partly by education, partly by the enforcement of the law, but also because football fans chose to act, to take on those who shamed their clubs and shamed their country. As a woman at football, I see that football has changed immeasurably. We can work with fans, we can work with the police to put in measures that will support decent fans who simply want to enjoy a game. That bill does the opposite. People do not even know when they go to a match whether what they are doing is prosecutable or not. The Scottish Government sends another mixed message. It clings to a bill that does not work, but at the same time has systematically stripped out funding from the very organisations that will tick-tackle sectarianism, bigotry and abuse. The work that needs to be done in our communities to root out those attitudes. Those programmes have gone, and all we have left is with the bill and its title, creating difficulty in our communities. I will support its repeal at the end, because I believe that in that way we are doing football in this country, and the people who go there, and our broader community, are the best service. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee that has scrutinised this bill at stage 1, we heard a wide range of evidence, and I want to put in record my thanks to all who gave evidence and, of course, the clerks. The report, as others have said in Clun James Kelly, was very well written and captured all the main points. It has now been an oversupporter attending games with the tendencies of around 400 people, and where the police officer in duty that day takes the time to speak to fans in a normally family-friendly environment, this process of scrutiny has been of great interest to me. I think that it is important to note that, as an MSP not elected from the 2012 act, first went through what we are being asked to scrutinise here. In John Finnie's touch on this, we are being asked not if we should implement this law, but rather should we repeal it. So I approached the evidence-gathering in that manner, thinking about the repercussions of repeal without anything else being in place, as proposed by James Kelly. The constituency that I represent, unfortunately much of Central and West Scotland, has been blighted with the cost of sectarianism. We cannot deny that and we should never shirk away from trying to tackle it and I applaud all members of the chamber for addressing that today in their speeches. Football does have a role in that. I have many friends and family who will not take their children to Celtic Park or Ibrox because of perceived behaviours that they may be exposed to by a minority of fans. I myself am now a second generation of her family without religious ties and I think that this came about as a result of the wedding of my grandparents in 1952. My gran, a Roman Catholic from Ireland who, with her family, had settled in Coatbridge and my grandad, a Protestant also from Coatbridge. Apparently, this wedding caused a few short ways at the time but I just like to think of him as Coatbridge's Romeo and Juliet of her generation. But to say whether you are part of it or not, sectarianism affects everyone and every part of civic Scotland. From offensive remarks on Facebook, to running battles on Wiflet Main Street on matchday to the saddening scenes of flag waving on 19 September 2014 in George's Square against a backdrop of flares and police mounted in horseback. When the legislation was passed, I thought, great, something that can help to tackle the problem, not solve it at all, but start to tackle it. When I heard the evidence for repeal, I was surprised at the strength of it, because heritage is important, culture is important, and so is freedom of speech. I believe in all of those things too, and I pay tribute to all those who gave evidence and made this case, fans against criminalisation, bimus, Stuart Reagan from the SFA, among others. But equally, we heard compelling evidence to retain the bill, because laws must be made to protect. From the likes of Stonewall Scotland, as has been mentioned, the Scottish Disabled Supporters Association and the Scottish Women's Convention, again, among many others. Many of those organisations represented minority groups and were extremely concerned about the impact that repeal of the legislation would have and what message it would send out, and I know that some of my colleagues have talked about the content of their evidence. Therefore, on balance, I am of mind to vote for retaining the act against the repeal tonight. There was evidence, albeit conflicting, as has been teased out from different witnesses, that there would be a gap in the law, particularly around section 6, and that we would be failing to protect the majority of football fans and the wider public more generally. The majority of those who gave evidence on both sides of the debate indicated that they would prefer to delay any repeal until after Lord Bracadale's review. However, as the convener has said, after some debate, the committee agreed unanimously not to delay to be fair to the review and because there was no time limit. However, it is worth pointing out that both groups were giving evidence that there was a majority for leaving it. That was not an easy position to reach, I have to say, as I have outlined, as there were persuasive arguments on both sides. I will draw you to this particular section of stage 1 of the report, which has already been mentioned. The minority who voted against the general principles of the bill are of the view that, should the 2012 act be retained, the Scottish Government should revisit the 2012 act and bring forward constructive amendments. I think that Ben Macpherson and Mary Gougeon have made that point very clear. That is because, as I myself and my colleagues believe, they were not simply in favour of retention for retention's sake, but they have the stance that rather than repeal the bill, the Government should amend it to take on both the many concerns, particularly around section 1, and ultimately make it a better law that works, because that is what we all want. I want to discuss quickly the issue that James Kelly mentioned that I tried to intervene on in his remarks. It has come up in evidence as well of young people, perhaps, with no history of convictions picking up offences through this act. As someone with a background in criminal justice social work and, indeed, youth justice, that did worry me somewhat, particularly as the Scottish Government had made funding available for a diversion scheme through the organisation SACRO. Under that justice secretary, more emphasis has been put on restorative and diversionary justice from prosecution. However, I am also clear that that is an issue not of the act itself and should not be argued as a reason to repeal. It is an issue of implementation and of court and local services, and prosecutors know what diversion schemes are available. If the repeal is agreed to, which seems a probable outcome, then we must get on with respecting that democratic bill and implementing the outcome. I know that the Scottish Government will take the steps to make sure that we can continue to tackle such things in the period post-act. If, however, it is retained, I think that those with concerns can be assured that the Government would be strongly encouraged to revisit and improve the legislation that I set out by SNP members and committee. I call John Scott, who is followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by welcoming the stage 1 debate today and congratulating James Kelly MSP on bringing the repeal bill forward to Parliament. I also thank the Justice Committee for their hard work on this bill and note at the outset that the Justice Committee has backed the general principles of the repeal bill. I welcome their work at the stage 1 report on what is essentially post-legitim scrutiny on the 2012 act, and their report is not kind to the Scottish Government, and this act is perhaps the classic case in the legislative terms of the SNP Government acting in haste and repenting at leisure. I have a deal of sympathy for Roseanna Cunningham MSP, who was charged by her colleagues to get a bill on the statute book, get it done quickly, and then the SNP majority government of the day just rammed it through Parliament. I share Johann Lamont's recollections of the shortened timescales that were demanded of her, because the flaws in the bill were manifest at the time and were well documented in Parliament then and since. The sound of wings flapping over Holyrood recently is merely the chickens coming home to roost on this poorly thought-out piece of legislation. When SNP members are the Justice Committee, and here I quote directly from the stage 1 report, are of the view that should the 2012 act be retained, the Scottish Government should revisit the 2012 act and bring forward constructive amendment. That tells you that even the SNP members accept that this act is not fit for purpose, and they are not alone in their condemnation. Here, we as parliamentarians also have to thank those who provided the 286 submissions to the Justice Committee in its call for evidence, because 227 of those submissions were in favour of repeal of the 2012 act, that is 227 out of 286, which is almost 80 per cent of the respondents who wanted to see this act repealed. I am sorry, I do not have time, minister. You will be able to make your remarks in your winding-up speech. However, condemnation of this act was not limited to submissions on the call for evidence by the committee. Over 3,200 football clubs and members of the public took part in James Kelly's member's bill consultation, and 71 respondents backed repeal of section 1 to 5, while 62 per cent supported the repeal of sections 6 to 9. That is post-legitative scrutiny in action, and today our party will be supporting the repeal of the legislation. Of course, if no other law were available to deal with bad behaviour at football matches, perhaps a case could be made for amending the bill. However, that is manifestly not the case, with sufficient pre-existing law in place to cover the type of behaviour that was targeted by the 2012 act. That is not only the view of the Scottish Conservatives but also the view of the Law Society of Scotland. Of course, if there was no other legislation to deal with incitement to religious hatred, perhaps again a case would be made for amending the bill. Professor Fiona Leveritt told the Justice Committee that if someone behaves in a threatening manner or makes a threat, that would be covered by section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010. Two key elements of the bill were not required in the first place, and to be frank, the 2012 act was brought forward as a knee-jerk response to satisfy the Government's view that something needed to be done at that time. When sufficient pre-existing legislation was in place to deal with complaints before it was introduced and since. If the bill is repealed, we need to look to the future and develop a view on how we deal with the type of behaviour that the minister herself acknowledges still continues, notwithstanding the 2012 act being in place and which she defends, but which self-evidently is not working. As with many other problems, educating children and young people early in life is one of the most obvious ways of eliminating sectarianism and abusive behaviour. That is not only about telling children and young people that sectarianism and abusive behaviour is a bad thing. What it is about is teaching young people tolerance and that others are entitled to their views, even if those views are at odds with their own. That comes from an understanding of history, an understanding of evolution or social justice and an understanding of the needs of others as well as your own. The Scottish legal landscape would be a better place without this poorly thought-out piece of legislation, and I hope that Parliament supports that view tonight. The final contribution in the open debate is from James Dornan. In my view, repealing the act is an error of massive proportion. Whatever your view of the act, the message that is sent out here by repeal plays into every ancient stereotype of the sectarian drunken Scot who only wants to drink and fight. It damages the reputation of Scottish football, Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. I know that this is not what the Greens intend and expect, although I think that they are massively wrong. They are voting for what they think is the right reason, the flawed legislation and other reasons. I also accept that there are some in those benches who would be concerned about that, although for some it appears self-interest and or the chance to kick the Government is far more important. On those benches here, this plays right into their hands. There are many who would be happy to see this place treated with contempt and derision, and I fear that that will be the consequence of this decision. We were contacted by someone who said in my office that legislation is often used to indicate the kind of society in which we want to try to be. I agree, and I cringe when I think of what society people think we want Scotland to be if we vote to repeal this act today. We have heard a lot today about this piece of legislation that only targets football fans. It is nonsense. It targets people who break the law. In most civilised societies, what happens then is that we try to change the behaviours of those who break the law. Here, what seems to be the case is that, if you get a well-organised, influential, apparently well-funded group of people who can wield some political clout, you can get a compliant politician to fight to change the law on your behalf. We also have Daniel Johnson, a Labour MSP that brings out a member's bill protecting retail workers from attack, a very sensible move that I hope I am able to support. However, why is he bringing it forward when there are already laws in place to deal with assault? He sees special circumstances around the safety of shopkeepers. Pretty much the same as we see special circumstances around the behaviour at football. We also hear a lot about spending money on education. The SNP Government has spent more than any previous administration on exactly that. What good though is spending money through education and other methods from Monday to Friday if the same young kid then goes to the football on a Saturday and hears people call his dad a fhenion or an orange bee? All that good work is heading out the window because we think that behaviour is no longer worthy of our attention. I saw online someone accusing Null by mouth of being untrustworthy because they received funding from the Scottish Government. That idiot should hang his head in shame, particularly given the circumstances in which Null by mouth came about in the first place. Last Saturday, FAC had a meeting to discuss the act. It was at first reported that the meeting was cancelled because two rangers casuals came to the meeting and would not promise to behave. The person who chaired the meeting denied this, and I believe him. However, he went on to say that the police were called because these two rangers supporters were there and would not behave. A meeting called about a law that does not let the people sing calls the police because of a fear of the wrong kind of singing taking place. You could not make it up, and unfortunately we do not have to. I am not sure when or how one group of fans got to dictate to the rest. I have been one for nearly 60 years. I saw him in both the long barren spells as a young child before steam came and through the mccarrion Brady years, and yet apparently I no longer qualify for this unique club because I oppose their right to bring sectarian songs and songs about terrorism and the loss of innocent lives, including many Irish people into the stadium. I have sang those songs, I sing them, I sing them, I sing them, I sing them, when I was a teenager during the 60s and early 70s, but times change. The situation in Ireland changed, and I got older. Back then you could smoke in a bus, be in a car without wearing a seat belt and ride a motorbike without wearing a helmet, but you could not, for example, be openly gay. That was still against the law in Scotland. What I am saying is, times change. It appears that some football fans do not. So, when or if you make your decision to take us back to the 70s tonight at 5pm, just remember what it was like back then. Last week, a member of my staff was delivering my annual reports when one particularly Irish constituent came charging out his door, scrunched up the annual report and shouted to him, I'd never vote for that effing Celtic supporter IRA-loving ffynion C. That's how far we still have to go, and repealing this act will send out the message that we're not really bothered about getting there. I'll tell you something else. If you're serious about this and this legislation passes tonight, I hope then that you'll support my member's debate and strict liability, because if not, then you're not serious at all. The 11-year-old daughter of a member of my staff heard her mother and I discussing this debate last night, she later said to her mum, mum, the bottom line is this, and years to come will the Labour man be able to put his head in the pillow knowing that he's changed the lives of wee kids like me, or will he be really sad that he could have changed history and he didn't, out of the mouth of children? We now move to the closing debate, and I call Neil Findlay, six minutes please, Mr Findlay. Presiding Officer, I used to be a football fan and the game used to give me great pleasure. There's nothing like the excitement of a big match with a full house, and the high and, ultimately, very low point for me was falling Scotland to the 1990 World Cup. I still come out in a sweat every time I hear Costa Rica mentioned, but the football that I enjoyed has changed. The growing chasm between those who play the game and own the teams and the fans who spend their hard-earned wages attending matches is, I believe, a real danger to the future sustainability of clubs in the game. Excuse me. The vast amounts of money that's flooded into football hasn't made the game more competitive in Scotland, it's just made it ever more predictable. In the experience of fans, the lifeblood of the game comes a long way behind advertising and soaring ticket prices, merchandising and TV revenues, and it's for those reasons that I personally have fallen out of love with football. I accept that being part of a crowd of people at any cultural event can be an exciting, good-humoured and an exhilarating experience, but on other occasions it can be ugly, especially when peer pressure, an aggressive crowd mentality, takes hold. Let me be clear. I loath bigotry sectarianism and racism. That was drummed into me by my parents from an early age. Detesting everything about sectarianism is one of the things that my late father instilled in me and I thank him for having done that. As we debate the repeal of this act, my main reason for supporting James Kelly's proposals are not rooted in football. They are rooted in defending the rights of my constituents and the rights of my class. Ever since the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was introduced, the response from fans, the legal profession and rights group have been negative and persistent. I do not support the repeal just for opposition's sake. It is about defending the rights of people who choose to go and watch a sport but have their rights removed for doing so. In a moment, the act as it stands in the main criminalises young working-class men because of something that they do inside or on the way to a football match, but that very same behaviour and other circumstances would go either unpunished or would be dealt with under a different law. James Jordan I thank Mr Finlay for taking the intervention. Will he accept that the vast majority of the crowd should be allowed to enjoy the game without listening to the sectarian singing that we hear at many grounds across Scotland? Neil Findlay The Offensive Behaviour Act seeks to impose a set of values on individuals who are deemed by the act to engage in activities that are distasteful. That, in my view, is straightforward class prejudice. George Adam, in a ludicrous contribution, said that any song not about football shouldn't be sung at a football ground. No sun, sit down, Mr Adam, no thank you. Sunshine on Leith banned from Easter Road, Penny Arcade banned from Ibrox and just can't get enough banned from Celtic Park. I am not the biggest dupeish mode fan, Mr Adam, but one of the early singles should not be classified as offensive and the singer arrested for doing so. We should seek to address sectarianism across society as a whole so that young people grow up learning to be tolerant, empathetic and respectful. The overwhelming majority of them are. We are more likely to tackle sectarianism through education and culture or change through our schools, colleges and youth work, where we are more likely to tackle it by continuing to fund anti-sectarianism projects, not by demonising young working-class football supporters. There is a certain political and media class that I have never liked football fans or the influence fan culture has. I accept that that culture has at times crossed the line, but incidents are relatively few. Most football fans are law-abiding and conscientious citizens. When it does cross the line, the law already exists to deal with it. I said earlier that this is not about football. It is about the fundamental right to be equal before the law. To lose that equality and your rights because you walk through the door of a football stadium but not a rugby stadium or a theatre or a pop festival shows the absurdity of the act. The act was passed without the support of other parties. The first time this has happened, it is not fit for purpose. The police have been unable to implement the law, the courts are unclear on how to deal with offenders and the trust and relationship between football fans and the police has been undermined. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was introduced too quickly, without due consideration for the outcomes that it would have on the lives of those that it would affect. We must address bigotry and sectarianism and intolerance in our society, but this was never the way to go about it. This is an experiment that has failed and it is time for the Government to admit that it was wrong. If they do, I will applaud them. I would applaud them for their honesty. I am sure that thousands of football fans and many other of our citizens would do the same. I commend James Kelly for introducing this bill. He has my support and the support of my party. I make an appeal to SNP-backed benchers who know that this is bad law, who know that this should never have been introduced, not to vote by what your whips tell you but to vote with your conscience and reject what the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act supports. I remind members that this is not a football match. Deputy Presiding Officer, yet again we have debated the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. The Conservatives have been opposed to the 2012 bill since it was rushed through this Parliament and we remain opposed to it today. It was an ill-thought-out reactionary piece of legislation, which, when viewed in the best light, was intended to deal with a problem recognised by us all. However, it is an unnecessary law, as the law already in existence fully provided for crimes for charging those guilty of any of the offences under this new law. The appropriate approach to dealing with a recognised problem is not always the creation of a new criminal law. As Anthony Horan of the Catholic Parliamentary Office was correct in saying that, and I quote, we need to do more than simply throw legislation at the problem. Education can play a large part in addressing the issue of unacceptable sectarian behaviour. My colleague Maurice Corry talked about taking that fight to our homes, classrooms and communities where we can change culture and attitudes. In evidence given to the committee, we are told that there is significant scope to improve the use of interventions such as STOP, the cognitive behavioural programme that helps people to think about their own attitudes and how to change them. Liam Kerr re-iterated the evidence given by the Law Society of Scotland about all 287 charges that were brought under section 1 of the act in 2015-16 that could have been brought under pre-existing legislation. The act is unnecessary and it unfairly targets a section of society. It is an example of producing law for the sake of it rather than enforcing the law that already exists. The minister herself pointed out to the committee that, and I quote, football is not an island on its own where people are free to do as they choose without any need to consider the wider aspect of their behaviours. Aggressive behaviour that is deemed acceptable at football will simply be carried into other areas of life. Well, it is ironic that the SNP Government has created that island and placed football supporters on it, ignoring the fact that such behaviours can and do occur in other areas of life irrespective of the football interests or allegiances. I had heard it suggested this afternoon in the debate that there is no real problem now and that huge problems were before, and violence is still some problem. It is not of a big order. Can I just remind members that I am unplugged guilty to charges under the act for shouting, making racist gestures a monkey gesture to Scott Sinclair, a Celtic player, during a Celtic Rangers match on 29 April 2017? That is still a very current problem. Yes, no one is suggesting that it is not a problem. What we are saying is that this act will not solve it and is not addressing the problem. How is it fair to treat football supporters travelling to Tynecastle differently to rugby supporters travelling to Murrayfield? On this, no I won't, I am afraid, and I would echo Neil Findlay's comments because surely this is socially divisive. What is clear is that there has been a negativity and demonisation brought about by the Offensive Behaviour Act and it has resulted in distrust between fans and the police that we have heard about already today. Police officers are themselves placed in an unenviable position by all of this. One of the key criticisms of the 2012 act was about the need for application of the section 1 offence by police officers, meaning that they require to place themselves in the position of that notional reasonable person who would be offended by certain behaviour or, as the 2012 act section 1 subsection 2E itself fails to define other behaviour. That is not a definition, that is a nonsense and absurdum. We are none of us mind readers and for anyone second guessing what might happen in another person's head in the event that they hypothetically were present somewhere they were not presents a total mind maze. Danny Boyle of Bemis put it well in my opinion when he said that police officers are and I quote, not anthropologists, sociologists or political commentators, so the act is a difficult piece of legislation for them to implement. I would say that would apply to most of us and Jeanette Findlay of fans against criminalisation stated and again I quote, it should raise alarm bells that police officers have to be trained to discover what might be offensive. Now those complexities result in instances we've heard about today already and another example such as the rangers fan arrested for holding a banner reading acts the act. Such an interpretation places us in dangerous waters already in the realms of restricting free speech. How are fans themselves to know what the act does and does not criminalise? Supporters direct said that quote, there is generally a lot of ambiguity about what constitutes a criminal offence under the act. Well we can say that again. Inventing a reasonable person and thereby an arbitrary threshold as to what it is or is not offensive is itself in this context an unacceptable limit on freedom of expression. Indeed, Dr Stewart Weighton said that the act quotes criminalises words and thoughts. So section 1 is a hideous construction and repeal would not be a crafty goal for James Kelly, as Ben Macpherson suggested. Rather, I would say that the refusal to repeal it is an own goal for the SNP. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is time to scrap the act. I call Anabelle Ewing. Today we have heard a lot about the proposed problems with the act and a great deal of enthusiasm to repeal it with scant regard for the impact that it will have. Repealing the act will have consequences. Those consequences are not just around the ability to charge people for their behaviour at and around football or not. The real consequences will be felt by those who fear attending football matches because they feel exposed to those who interpret repeal as freedom to be abusive within a football environment, such as the 46 per cent of LGBT people in Scotland tell us feel unwelcome at sporting events. The real consequences will be felt by the whole of society as unchallenged offensive language wears away the sense of identity and belonging that our communities should rightly feel, undermining cohesion and isolating one community from another through fear of being abused. That hateful and prejudicial behaviour does have a corrosive impact on the people and communities being targeted. Offensive behaviour is not harmless and it is not victimless. On 18 January of this year, the Scottish Newspaper editorial stated that, changing any society's values for the better is a hard thing to do, but it is important for democratically elected politicians to recognise that they have a leadership role and to make the direction of travel clear. If the Scottish Parliament decides to repeal the act, MSPs will need to think very carefully about the presentation of this decision. No one should be left in any doubt that offensive sectarian behaviour at football will not be tolerated. Much of the discussion on the act focuses on the impact that it has on a minority of football supporters and their rights to sing and do as they please during a match. What about the vast majority of football supporters and the rest of society? Is it not rather insulting to suggest that it is working-class people who are the ones who wish to sing sectarian songs, as Mr Finlay did? As I have said before, football is not something that is separate from everything else in society, indeed, an island off on its own, where no one has to worry about what happens there. It is absolutely built into the fabric of Scottish society. It is indeed Scotland's national game, and that means that it has responsibilities beyond the stadium. The influence of football cuts across the whole of society and what happens there influences how people behave towards each other in other areas of society. When abusive language and behaviour goes unchallenged, it simply becomes the norm, and that is harmful to all of society. The Justice Committee's report on the bill highlighted the widespread support for legislation from key groups, and it is worth reminding ourselves perhaps of some of those comments. Chris Oswald of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said, we must note that protections for disabled people and trans people would be lost if the act were to be repealed, and there is at this point no prospect of their reintroduction. Colin McFarlane from Stonewall Scotland told the committee that the act sends a clear message that abusive behaviour at football is not acceptable, and I quote, repealing the act without putting other measures in place could undermine work that has been undertaken by organisations such as Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network, football clubs, Police Scotland and the criminal justice agencies to increase LGBT people's confidence, not only in reporting hate crime but in attending sporting events such as football. The Reverend Dean Galloway of the Church of Scotland said—I will take an intervention. Liam McArthur. To the minister, she is quite right in the evidence that she relates from Stonewall and others, but she is ignoring the evidence that we have from ACC Higgins. In the absence of this bill, other laws would be used to enforce the law and to crack down on this behaviour. Is she no confidence in ACC Higgins? Annabelle Ewing. I think that it is clear from the evidence that the member is well aware of that was submitted to the committee that there are concerns that there will be constraints on what can be done in terms of the abilities of the prosecuting authorities to tackle some of this behaviour. That evidence is very clearly set forth in the evidence official reports of the justice committee. I was saying, Presiding Officer, that the Reverend Ian Galloway of the Church of Scotland said, and I quote, that there is a danger of sending the message by the simple repeal of the act that we are not taking seriously enough such behaviours and attitudes. Much of the criticism of the act centres around the criminalisation of behaviour that is otherwise offensive to a reasonable person. Since April 2012, there have been a total of 196 charges under this category. The majority of the charges under the act, 823 charges, have been for threatening behaviour. That is people fighting and engaging in violent behaviour. There have also been 405 charges for hateful behaviour, including racist, homophobic or sexist abuse. As I said in my opening statement, if the will of Parliament is to support the principles of the repeal bill, then it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to look at how the impact of this full, hardy action can be minimised to ensure that communities currently protected by the act do not suddenly find themselves with no protection. If there is any party that wishes to move forward by amending the act, then my door does remain open to them, and I am happy to consider how the act can be improved. If Parliament wishes to repeal the act, then the Government's primary focus needs to be ensuring that people remain protected from those crimes and that vulnerable minority communities do not feel that they have been sidelined and marginalised. Ensuring protection to minority communities would be something that everyone in this chamber can agree with. It is therefore something that we would hope we can work to build a consensus around so that we arrive at a practical and at a workable way forward. Delaying commencement is one option that would allow us to ensure that we have the time to put necessary protections in place and, in particular, to look at how the protection offered by section 6—a very important provision, as we have heard in the debate this afternoon—can be maintained in relation to threatening communications. We are prepared to explore all the options available to find a secure way forward, which will address the concerns that have been raised by religious organisations and equality groups and groups such as Victim Sports Scotland, the Scottish Women's Convention and others. Concerns about the negative message that repeal will send, a message that can only realistically be addressed by ensuring continuity of protection to such communities. I would say to those who are supporting repeal that they should reflect very carefully about the impact of their decision to repeal the act. What is the message that is being sent to minority communities and victims of hatred and discrimination? There is surely a danger that the message being sent is that the rights of the abusive, bigoted minority are more important than the rights of the majority who are fed up with this hateful and prejudicial behaviour. Saying that we need to stand up to abusive behaviour at football is no good without action, and repealing the act with no alternative to offer, no plan to ensure continuity of protection to vulnerable communities is worse than taking no action. It is dragging us back to where we started and will completely fail, Presiding Officer, to make the matchday experience one that really is open to all. I now call James Kelly. You take us up to decision time, please, Mr Kelly. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me start by echoing the comments of Joanne Lamont and Fulton MacGregor. I am sure that every member of the Parliament will agree that hateful or sectarian behaviour, whether it takes place in the street, in a local community, inside a religious venue or at a football ground, is completely unacceptable and should be tackled. As the debate is well known, there have been some sharp disagreements. We obviously agree in the terms of such behaviour as unacceptable, where the disagreement is is how that is tackled. One of the strands that has come through in the debate is that there were different contributions from the SNP Benchants. I did not agree with Marie Gougeon, but I thought that she argued her case very well. However, there was a strand coming through that there is an issue about football fans. Football fans are a problem. We need to deal with them. I think that it is that attitude that brought the legislation forward in the first place. Not just yet, Mr Dornan. My experience as a football fan since 1969 has watched things move through the years. I do not seek to gloss over any recent events or any public disorder, but the issue of sectarianism and fan behaviour has improved dramatically in that time. I was at the 1980 Scottish Cup final where fans fought actively on the pitch and ran down the terraces. I can get back up the terraces for people running down to get on to the pitch. We are not living in those times where people actively threw bottles in the grounds or fought out in the streets. Things have moved on. It is that context that perhaps some of those in the SNP Benchants who clearly do not have any experience of football should remember. We also heard a lot about the disposed gap in the law, but, as John Finnie and others pointed out, in the law society evidence, they were very explicit in terms of the different law suites that were available in relation to pre-existing law. The one thing that has failed to be answered throughout the whole of the debate that we have had today is particularly in relation to section 6. How are we going to resolve the grey area that the section 6 was designed to resolve in the communications act in 2003, the gaps in sentencing and the extra-torial jurisdiction and the powers there? How are we going to overcome and resolve all those issues if we repeal the act? James Kelly. I will reflect on all the points that have been raised in the debate. However, when you have a section of an act where there was only one conviction in 2015-16, it is clearly not working. It is all very well standing up and making a point about extra-territorial application of that law. However, as the police officers have told us, if the threshold is too high, it is just a law in paper and it is not a law in practice, so that is something that clearly has to be addressed. Ben Macpherson made the point that I should not rush ahead with the legislation. Perhaps I could point out that, in terms of progressing it, I had my first meeting with the non-governmental bills unit in the first week of June 2016. I have been working on the legislation for more than 18 months. As it has outlined at the start, there is quite a robust process to go through, so it is not a case of rushing through. James Dornan. I ask Mr Kelly then, if he has been working for this for the best part of two years, why he has not got an answer to the question that Mary Gougeon has asked him. James Kelly. If he has actually been listening to Mr Dornan, I gave a direct answer to the point that Mary Gougeon raised. Ben Macpherson should not rush ahead with the legislation. Others said that I need to make some progress. I am sorry, Mr Macpherson. I do need to make some progress. Others have suggested that we should wait on the outcome of the Brackendale review into hate crime. That review does have an important place to play. However, as Liam McArthur pointed out to the Justice Committee, the Justice Committee is currently considering the several litigation legislation, which is a result of the Taylor report, which was produced in 2013. I do not think that we can wait four years to deal with the legislation, particularly when the law is so discredited, so weak and needs to be taken off the statute book. The other point that the minister repeatedly made and others about the need for amendments, and I was quite amused by that. All the way through the previous Parliament, the SNP was not interested in any amendment. It was repeatedly told us that we needed the legislation, but the minute it got into trouble, the doors opened to amendment. The point that I would make is that of all the speeches that were made about how people accepted that amendment needed amendment, nobody from the SNP was prepared to articulate the problems with the act and prepared to put forward any concrete ideas in terms of evidence. Annabelle Ewing. I gently suggest to the member that, surely, there would be reason to consider how we working together collectively with consensus can improve the act to give the protections that people need, rather than simply taking away all those protections with Mr Kelly's bill. James Kelly. I have made it absolutely clear that I think that this act is discredited. It is discredited because, for the central points that people have made in the debate, it does not work as an act of law. There are confusions around interpretation and, as the law society pointed out, that could result in further legal challenge, so it does not actually work as an act of law and needs to be taken off the statute book. One of the points that was made to me was what was the alternative. I have outlined an alternative previously, and I did in Malton in speech, but for those who were not listening, I will go through that again, picking out some of the strands and what we heard. First of all, a law that sends out a weak message. Look at the debate this afternoon. Apart from the SNP, no opposition politician has supported the act. What sort of message does that send out? It is clearly not an act, and it has got any credibility. It is not working, so, first of all, if you take that off, it is more effective. We need one law, if people commit hateful action in the street. Outside of our largest venue at a football ground, it should be tackled, but we need one law to do it. We do not need two laws. We also, as John Finnie pointed out, should look at alternatives to prosecution, and Sackrow made that point at the committee. We need investment in education to tackle sectarianism. We need a different approach, because clearly the current approach is not working. Only 7 per cent of the religious aggravations were focused around football grounds, and we need to bring fans, police and football clubs together, as the Scottish Football Supporters Association has suggested. In moving to my summing up, Mr Dornan described me as a compliant politician, and I have to say that I found that remark deeply insulting. I have consistently opposed that act. If there is bad law in a Parliament, it is a responsible job of a member of that Parliament to call that bad law out. What I have been complying in is calling out an ineffective and unfair law. What we need now is that there is a notice here on the Government to try and bring people together. The case in terms of the existing act is completely discredited. We need a more unified approach that brings together the politicians, the fans and the groups outside Parliament and produces an approach that tackles sectarianism and does not hide behind a law that is not working. With that final point, Presiding Officer, I submit my view in support of the general principles of the repeal bill. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on the offensive behaviour of football bill at stage 1. We move now to the next item of business. Before we do, I just want to say a few words following this afternoon's First Minister's questions, and I have to say that I was very disappointed by the behaviour that displayed this afternoon at First Minister's Questions. In particular, I want to make it clear that it is never acceptable to use words such as lies, liar or lying in this chamber, particularly when describing another member. What I would also say is that I expect the best from every member in this chamber, and I am rarely let down. I understand that passions do sometimes run high and that, in the heat of the moment, intemporate language can be used. I will not hesitate to do so when necessary, but I do not see my role as primarily being one of rebuking or justising members, rather of standing behind you and allowing you to be the best that you can be. In those occasions, I try to allow members the opportunity to reflect on their behaviour rather than escalate matters. It is noticeable that the First Minister did exactly that and used the opportunity of her final answer to reflect on the importance and power of words. We will move now to the next item of business, which is decision time, and there is one question today as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 10072, in the name of James Kelly, on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeal Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10072, in the name of James Kelly, is yes, 65, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.