 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeal Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments today, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 19A, the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the group of amendments should press their request to seek button as soon as possible after I call the group. I hope that that is all clear. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 2 and 4. I have said throughout the passage of the bill that there would be a gap in legislation if the section 6 offence is repealed. That is a simple statement of fact, despite assertions to the country. Repealing the section 6 offence puts Scotland behind the rest of the UK in terms of protection against incitement to religious hatred, and therefore we need to take steps to seek to ensure continuity of protection. Section 6 contains extraterritorial powers, ensuring that freedom of movement does not mean escaping the law. That power will be lost if the act is repealed. At stage 2, I highlighted the oral evidence from the Crown Office and Procurator of Physical Service referencing a case in which an accused person posted comments that were supportive of a prescribed terrorist organisation, ISIS. The sentencer's view was that the severity of those actions should be reflected in a starting point of 24 months imprisonment. That starting point would not have been available in the alternative charge under the 2003 communications act. James Kelly I thank the minister for taking an intervention. I wonder if she has had an opportunity to reflect on the old submission that I and Liam McArthur made to the Justice Committee, pointing out that, in the case that she quotes section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licent Act, it allows a charge in relation to threatening online behaviour and sentences of up to five years. There is no gap in the law. I would beg to differ, but I am getting on to section 38. The legal position is such that there is a need to satisfy, as far as breach of the peace, the offensive breach of the peace is a two-part test. That is conduct that causes fear and alarm, which threatens serious disturbance to the community. The higher threshold for a conviction for an offence under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licence and Scotland Act 2010 is that the fear and alarm test must be met, whereas no similar hurdle pertains with respect to section 6. That means that those offences cannot be relied upon to deal with section 6 offences. It will mean that some section 6 offences will go unpunished. In that respect, repeal of section 6 will result in a gap in the law. Section 6 provides a specific offence of making threatening communications with intent to stir up religious hatred. It makes clear what type of communications constitutes an offence of making threatening communications, and it also makes clear what type of communications will not lead to criminal proceedings, and it provides protection for freedom of speech. Breach of the peace in section 38, as I have said, does not provide the same level of certainty and does not send a strong enough message that we intend to deal robustly with crimes of religious hatred. At the moment, we have a specific offence of making communications intended to stir up racial hatred under part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. If section 6 of the 2012 act is repealed, we will have no similar offence of sending communications intended to stir up religious hatred. Is that really the message that we want to send, that we do not take religious hatred as seriously as racial hatred? Equality groups have been very clear that they place great importance on the protection that the act offers them, particularly section 6. It is absolutely right that we look at constructive ways to ensure that support for repeal does not leave them feeling exposed and unprotected. As a responsible Government, we have a duty to make every effort to minimise the negative impact that would be caused by repeal. I am afraid that I need to make progress, I have already taken one, but we need time to do this by preparing a new bill to reinstate the section 6 offence hence we seek continuity of protection in the interim. That is why I have brought forward again at stage 3 amendments 1, 2 and 4 to adjust sections 5 and 6, which deal with the date of commencement for the bill. The effect of amendments 1, 2 and 4 is to delay the commencement of the repeal of section 6 offence by 12 months from royal assent. When combined with amendment 3 and grouping 2, which we will come to shortly, the amendments also delay the commencement of the repeal of section 1 offence by 2 months. Amendment 1 amends the definition of the relevant date in section 5 of the bill, so that it takes account of the different commencement dates for section 1 and section 6 offences that would result from those amendments. Amendment 2 amends section 6 of the bill to confine the existing default commencement provision, so that it applies only to the repeal of section offence. Currently, the bill provides that the default commencement provision for the bill is for it to come into force on the date after royal assent, but our amendment 3, which we will come to in the next group, would, if agreed, change that so that the default commencement is two months after royal assent. That is to say the normal position with regard to legislation dealing with Scots criminal law. Amendment 4 provides that the bill, so far as repealing the rest of the 2012 act, that is the section 6 offence of sending threatening communications, comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months, beginning with the day of royal assent. As I have consistently explained throughout the passage of the bill, repealing section 6 creates a gap in the legislation that needs to be addressed. Those claiming that there would be no gap if the act were repealed are simply wrong. I move amendment 1. I rise to speak against amendment 1 and the other amendments in group 1. Those amendments seek to delay the section 6 offence coming in from 12 months from royal assent. That precise issue was considered at stage 2. The effect of that, whether or not amendment 3 is passed today, would be to implement a staggered repeal. That is to say that the section 6 offences, notwithstanding the lack of them due to the threshold of prosecution having set too high, could continue in theory to be prosecuted for some considerable time after repeal of the rest of the act. I recall at stage 2 that the thinking behind that was to come up with an alternative legislative provision to deal with the circumstances covered by section 6 of the 2012 act, notwithstanding that I am not persuaded that there is a requirement to do so. As we will hear later, I do not concede that there would be a gap in the law. I cannot help but feel that that will add complexity to what would otherwise be a straightforward appeal. I suspect that later we will debate at length the message that will be sent out if the 2012 act is repealed. I intend to answer that point in my submission later, but here I use the argument to my own advantage. If we assume that stage 3 today concludes with the repeal bill being passed, it will be all over the press sending a very clear message that the 2012 act has been repealed. What confusion, what complexity, what inconsistency will be sown if a little-used, little-understood single section of the act has been retained and prosecutions could be and are continued for the following 12 months? Yes, I will. To the member for taking intervention, clearly, as I have explained, there will be a gap for the reasons that I have just stated once again for the record. What is the member saying then to all the quality groups and faith groups who raise the concern that repealing section 6 without any viable alternative being put in its place sends the wrong signal, takes away protection that they rely upon? What is the problem with retaining section 6 for a further period of 12 months? Why is the member determined to take that protection away from those vulnerable communities? I thank the minister for the intervention. There is no gap. Professor Leverick was clear in the committee that there will be no gap. It will be prosecuted under other legislation. The groups are not having protection detracted from them. They can be reassured by the message. All that you are seeking to do, minister, is to introduce complexity, confusion and inconsistency over the next 12 months. That would not be welcome. Given that transitional arrangements will take care of the existing matters, this amendment is neither required, it is not productive and it is not helpful. The Scottish Conservatives shoveled against amendment 1 and all those in the group. Those amendments are about being responsible. I refer members to the stage 1 report from the Justice Committee, which refers to some of the very powerful evidence that we heard around section 6. I quote from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, who said that section 6 is an important transnational power that catches conduct that would not otherwise be caught by Scots law. Given the runaway growth of social media, that matter probably needs more careful and extended consideration of the kind that Lord Brackendale is giving instead of simply need-jerk repeal. It is clear that, in the 2012 act, there is a distinction between the different offences in sections 1 to 5 and in sections 1 to 6, and that distinction was made in the evidence that we took. The minister is absolutely right to have brought those amendments on the basis of responsibility and on the basis of making sure that our legal system serves the needs of those who require it. By simply asking for an extension before repeal of section 6 in order to make sure that there is not a gap in the law, and the point about the extra-territorial provision of section 6 has not been questioned in any of the evidence that I have heard or seen around the matter. To give the Government and others adequate time to make sure that there is not a gap in the law, particularly around the transnational element, is the responsible and right thing to do. Responsible MSPs will vote in favour of those amendments. Daniel Johnson has become very clear through stage 1 and 2 of the passage of the bill that there is no legal need for section 1 offences under the Offensive Behaviour Act 2018, because, as the law society and other people giving evidence such as Professor Leverick have made very clear, section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act and common law breach of the peace will allow disruptive behaviour to be prosecuted. I hear the concern about section 6 and I understand that, but the reality is that there has only been one conviction under this section of the act in the last year. Furthermore, it has been very clear from the evidence that this is an act that is too narrowly drafted to be used, as ACC Higgins gave evidence that it is rarely used and that the police prefer to bring forward charges under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Furthermore, the law society has made clear that common law can be used, citing the case of HM Advocate vs McGinley in 2012. Indeed, even the Scottish Government's commissioned independent review on hate crime legislation noted that section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act and section 127 of the Communications Act would, and I quote, remain relevant in the vast majority of cases. I think that it is very clear that repealing section 1 and section 6 will leave no gap in the law. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak against those amendments. This debate seems to hang on the issue of whether or not there is a gap. I quote from the law society's briefing. The bill, if passed, will not leave any gap in the criminal law as existing measures, both statutory and act common law, will allow for the prosecution of any relevant offending behaviour provided that sufficient admissible evidence exists. It could not, I think, be clear. In relation to the message that this sends out—I think that Ben MacPherson quite rightly draws attention to the evidence that the committee received at stage 1 from a number of representatives of those who have protected characteristics—but I fail to see how keeping in place an act that is not providing the protections that its supporters maintain is sending out the wrong message or even acting in the interests of those that it professes to protect. In terms of the amendments themselves, they suggest a delay of 12 months, but as the minister herself conceded during cross-examination at stage 2, the point by which the Government would be able to bring forward any replacement legislation would extend beyond 12 months and, therefore, where there to be a gap, that gap would still exist. I will take an intervention. Would the member not agree that, surely, in the interests of ensuring continuous protection, it would be better to seek to do what we could to ensure that protection continues for a further 12 months rather than taking away that protection from as early as mid-April? As I have already explained, it is not providing the protection that it is providing. Therefore, it seems to me ridiculous and somewhat irresponsible to allow the misconception to go unchalloned that the law is providing perfection if it is not, in fact, the case. At some stage, the Scottish Government is going to have to recognise that this bill, this illiberal, ineffective, misdirected bill, is going to be repealed, and continuing to promote this notion that there is going to be a gap or a dilution of protection is wholly irresponsible. General Questions raised the issue of vandalism in my constituency in the context of sectarianism, both at St Pat's Church and at the Cenotaph last year. I also raised the issue, just reported recently, in news of a local business owner who had been subjected to threatening communication online following Sunday's old firm game. Unfortunately, sectarianism is still a major problem in cases such as mine, and I am glad that Elaine Smith also touched on that in her question. Johann Lamont I wonder what message it gives to tackling sectarianism to cut the budget for anti-sectarianism projects from three—maybe you agree with this—let me finish the point, cutting the budget from £3 million to £1.5 million. How does that send out a message about tackling sectarianism? Sheldon MacGregor Johann Lamont knows fine well that this Government has invested heavily in tackling sectarianism, and she knows that. Throughout taking evidence of its clear, there was a difference between section 1 and section 6, and nobody from any party can deny that. Members across the board recognised that section 1 could be better reformed, in a situation such as the feeling that young men in particular have been penalised, so that we could address that better through the diversion schemes. However, whatever the merits of section 1 are or the repeal of section 1, section 6 is totally different, and it is irresponsible and does not send out a wrong message to just repeal it today. As no other member is asked to speak in this group, I will call on James Kelly to wind up. James Kelly, first, before the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to oppose all the amendments in this group, I believe that they are unnecessary. First of all, I think that the thing to understand about section 6 is that it has hardly been used in the six years that the act has been in place. There have only been 17 prosecutions, and as Daniel Johnson pointed out, only one conviction in the last year. The reason for that is that the police told us at the Justice Committee that the way that the legislation has been drafted is that the threshold has been set too high. Therefore, the route that the police and prosecutors are taking is to go round the route of the communications act and not use section 6 in relation to threatening communications. I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention. On that point, of course, the member and other members of the chamber will be aware or may be interested to be aware that there was a very recent conviction, successful conviction, under section 6. The issue concerned a 54-year-old man having been charged with making a death threat against Neil Lennon. That was a recent successful conviction under section 6, the section that the member wishes to take away. That brings me on to my next point, which is that repealing section 6 would not leave a gap in the law. The point that came out of the stage 1 debate was that the communication act only allowed sentences up to one year, whereas section 6 allowed a sentence up to five years. In looking at the issue in relation to the section 38 offence and offence that the minister relates to there, you can do a trial on indictment and somebody can be sentenced for five years. There is case law that backs this up, which is an HM advocate versus McGinley on a breach of the peace charge. In relation to religious minorities, as Professor Levery pointed out at committee, you can add a section 74 religious aggravation that has happened in the Love versus PF Stirling case. There is no gap in the law, there is legislation in place and there is also case law in place that demonstrates that there is not a gap in the law. I also agree with Liam McArthur's point that if that was in any way a serious position for the Government, it would have been proposing at least an 18-month gap to bring forward legislation. A 12-month gap is a minimal amount of time that would not have allowed legislation to be brought forward. That is simply a face-saving measure from the Government. The other important point to recognise is the one that was made by the Law Society and the submission ahead of the debate in talking about matters in relation to repeal. When they said, there is always merit in clarity, simplicity and consistency of the law, and that would be provided if the 2012 act is repealed in its entirety at one time. What the minister is seeking to do here is to have different timings in relation to repeal. The preferred route from the minister's point of view is a delay of 12 months for section 6 and 2 months for section 1 to 5, and that would be going against the wise council of the law society. I think that the point in relation to protection of minorities is that they cannot offer proper protection if the law has been unused if we are only seeing one conviction in the last year. In summing up, the aspect of the law is little used. There is no gap. There is no point in leaving a law in place that is not being used properly and incredibly. It is time to move quickly to repeal and to use the credible, robust pre-existing legislation that is already in place. Thank you. Now that James Kelly, who is the member in charge, has been allowed to respond, I will ask the minister to wind up. There is no question about the fact that there would be a gap in the legislation of section 6 which was repealed. A point that is recognised by Daniel Johnson when he referred to the fact that only the majority of cases could fall within the provision of other provisions, not 100 per cent of the cases. Indeed, in response to Mr Kelly and Ms Ricardo, I would say once again what I said in the opening statement and, of course, they will be very expert now on these legal matters given their perusal. However, I would say again for the record that the breach of the peace involves not only a fear and alarm test but also an element that concerns the threatening of serious disturbance to the community. That is a problem with regard to some section 6 issues and with regard to section 38. There is a fear and alarm hurdle, which is not the case in section 6, so I hope that, once and for all, as a lawyer myself, I can clarify that, hopefully, for the members. In that instance, I would also say, Presiding Officer, that I do not think, to be fair, that the author of the law society paper that has been referred to, the author of the paper that it produced, particularly for stage 3, has got it quite right, because, as I say, it is a simple matter of fact that the repeal of section 6 will leave a gap in the law that the Scottish Government acts irresponsibly and in the best interest of minority and vulnerable communities needs to address. My intention with this amendment is to seek the time to address this problem, a 12-month period challenging indeed but nonetheless realistic to introduce alternative legislation on section 6 issues. The argument that, because it may take a wee bit longer than that, we should just take away the protection potentially from mid-April, I find very confused indeed. We do not want Scotland to be behind the rest of the UK in terms of protection against incitement to religious hatred, because, of course, by taking section 6 away, there will be no specific offence of incitement to religious hatred in Scots law. I had, as I say, given the example of ISIS in my opening statement, and I have in intervention to Mr Kelly highlighted the recent successful conviction. Under section 6 of a 50-year-old man charged with making death threats against Neil Lennon. This gap in the law needs serious consideration by the Scottish Government so that we can work with partner organisations and those interested in ensuring that our minority communities have adequate recourse to law when they are attacked or harassed. That requires a bit of extra time to put in place longer-term protection against incitement to religious hatred in Scotland. That is not a complicated proposition, as the law society appeared to suggest. It is quite the opposite as it affords continuity of protection. I would have to add that it is not really clear at all why the author of the law society paper thinks that there would be any people concerned at section 6 prosecutions continuing. It would be irresponsible for the Scottish Government not to take steps to ameliorate the negative impact that the creation of this gap will have. Surely it is incumbent on all of us to find positive ways to respond to the concerns of organisations representing vulnerable and minority communities such as Stonewall Scotland, the equality network, Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Convention, Scottish Disability Supporters Association and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. When we see instances of hate crime rising, we would see this Parliament deliberately removing from Scots law the specific offence of incitement to religious hatred. Frankly, I find that beyond comprehension and I ask members to support the amendment. Thank you. That concludes our debate on group 1. We move to our first division. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Now there will be a division and, as this is the first division, the Parliament will be suspended for five minutes before we vote. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1 in the name of Annabelle Ewing is yes, 60, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2, the name of Annabelle Ewing, is yes, 60, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 2, which is amendment 3, in the name of the minister, in a group on its own. I would ask the minister to move and speak to amendment 3. The amendment 2 delay the repeal of section 1 has been proposed for purely practical reasons. Ensuring that the bill is brought into line with accepted, tried and tested practices supports the effective introduction of the changes to the law by ensuring that those who need to take account of those changes are able to work to a clear and specific date. That provides certainty and time for all those who are affected by the bill to take account of its provisions and to make all reasonable adjustments that are required of them before the date the new legislation comes into force if passed by this Parliament. That amendment therefore promotes clarity. A two-month period from what is said is not odd or unusual. It is simply good practice, particularly as far as criminal law is concerned. The argument that the closed season would offer police and prosecutors a period to carry out preparatory work simply does not hold water. That is for the simple reason that royal assent usually occurs about five to six weeks after stage 3, so the act could be repealed if passed by this Parliament as early as mid-April, but the current football season does not end until 19th May with the Scottish Cup final. That means that there could potentially be a month of football to be played after the act has been repealed without Police Scotland or prosecutors having had the necessary time to make the reasonable adjustments needed to ensure the changes in the law are being implemented effectively. Building in a two-month window would therefore allow Police, football clubs and supporter liaison officers to clearly communicate to fans that, although the legislation has been repealed, offensive, threatening and hateful behaviour at football will not be tolerated. Surely, Presiding Officer, that can be viewed as a good thing. Amendment 3 adjusts section 6 of the repeal bill, which deals with the commencement date of the bill. Currently, the default commencement provision in the bill is for it to come into force on the day after royal assent. Amendment 3 changes that so that the bill would commence at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of royal assent. In other words, this amendment brings the bill into line with standard practice for legislation dealing with the criminal law of Scotland. I move amendment 3. The repeal of the act lacks one thing, and that is a viable alternative. Most recent polls show a 69 per cent conviction rate and 85 per cent of people are offended by chance on sectarian songs. The repeal of the bill sends out an entirely wrong message. As the minister said, equality groups such as Stonewall Scotland, equality network, the churches and many others do not even feel safe to go to a football match, and I believe that we have to respond to that. The legislation is not perfect, I do not think that anyone is saying it is, but I cannot understand the rush to abolish this. At the very least, we should wait two months after royal assent to at least consider further legislation and to make the adjustments necessary as the minister has outlined. I believe that there is far too much at stake to repeal this bill now and replace it with nothing. I rise to speak against amendment 3. The amendment seeks to delay commencement of the repeal by two months. I have listened to the minister, both today and in stage 2, and the reasons given for the delay, which boil down to suggesting certainty in time to prepare for those affected by the bill, i.e. the repeal is required. I am not persuaded. It is instructive to note that the Lord Advocate has already, earlier this month, published new guidelines for football to instruct prosecutors to stop using the act and use pre-existing statutory offences or common law, such as breacher the peace. Even the Lord Advocate is persuaded that this is unnecessary. It is clear that, given the media's attention, the minister— I think that if the Lord Advocate were here, you might find that he was a bit surprised to hear the member say that. The key point is that the member referred to the guidelines that were issued towards the end of last week. Of course, the Crown Office has to continue its work on a daily basis, and it needs to ensure that the guidelines are there. That, of course, is a matter for the independent Crown Office, but it is not simply—that is one important strand. There are many other strands, including, as I said, building in time to work for the police to work with families on supporters' officers and all the rest. Does the member not want that time to be there in order to smooth the passage of this bill if passed? Liam Kerr. I absolutely do care. I think that the important thing— the minister appears to have misunderstood my comments. When I say even the Lord Advocate, what I mean is that, as the minister quite rightly pointed out, normal practice might be to wait two months, but even in this case, the Lord Advocate has considered it is better to publish the new guidelines for football already. It is clear, Presiding Officer, that, given the media attention around this matter for some considerable time, it is not as though repeal is going to come as a surprise to anyone. But in any event, I believe that getting the 2012 act in place prior to the start of the football season was one reason given for its initially being rushed. Following the timetable given by the unamended bill will bring about repeal towards or around the end of the football season, giving the off season for the new old regime to embed, the police etc to carry out preparatory work and deal with any message that may or may not be sent, the time for delay is over. The Scottish Conservatives shall vote no to this amendment and hope that should parliaments will be to pass the repeal bill, which we hope it is, the repeal takes place with all due haste and no further delays. As no other member has indicated the wish to speak, I call on James Kelly as the member in charge to respond. Thank you Presiding Officer, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the minister. The minister's central point is that prosecutors need time for preparation in relation to the passage of the repeal bill. The reality is that, as Liam Kerr said, it is no surprise that we are on the verge of a potential parliamentary vote to repeal the offensive behaviour at the Football and Threatening Communications Act 2020. Parliament made its view on the issue as far back as November last year. Prosecutors should have been well aware that Parliament had signals at its intention. In addition to that, as has been pointed out, the Lord Advocate following the stage 1 vote has already issued guidance saying that prosecutors should stop using the offensive behaviour at Football Act 2020. In addition to that, he has also emphasised the use of pre-existing legislation, which backs up the fact that there is no gap in the law. The reality is that the legislation is poor legislation. It has caused a lot of difficulty. The law society has pointed out that there is a lack of legal certainty. It is potentially open to legal challenge. The Human Rights Commission also made that point. When you have poor legislation on the statute book, it makes sense to get it off there as quickly as possible and use the credible pre-existing legislation to deal with cases that are going through the system. Seeking the two-month period from what was sent, as I say, is not order unusual. It is ensuring that the bill is brought into line with normal accepted practices, particularly as far as the criminal law of Scotland is concerned. It therefore promotes legal certainty and not the reverse. It is also fair to say that, although indeed amended guidelines were issued last week, there are other actors in the process who need the time, as I say, to build in a two-month window the discussions that will need to take place between the police, football clubs and support your liaison officers to clearly communicate the new position. I would not therefore have thought that it would be unreasonable to allow all those players to have the two months that they would, I am sure, welcome in order to do that and to do it properly. I think that reference was made by Liam Kerr and perhaps James Kelly about the fact that this would take place during the closed season. It probably will not, because, potentially, if the Parliament votes to repeal tonight, the repeal could come into effect as soon as mid-April, with one month of football season still to go. We are promoting the amendment as a responsible Government to promote clarity and to try to respect normal practices that we would expect to see in most other legislations, certainly with regard to legislation affecting our criminal law. As the date when royal descent is given is never certain, surely it is fairer that those who need to prepare for the repeal can work to a known date and have reasonable notice of it. That is not an unreasonable request and I would have thought that it is in the interest of everyone in the chamber to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can implement changes to the law as effectively as possible. That concludes our debate in group 2. We move to the vote and the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and, as this is the first division in a new group, we will have a one-minute vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in amendment 3 in the name of Annabelle Ewing is yes, 60, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 1 to move formally. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in amendment 4 in the name of Annabelle Ewing is yes, 60, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. Before we move to the debate on stage 3, as members will be aware at this point in proceedings, I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system or the franchise for the Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of this bill does that. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. We will move in a few moments to stage 3. I will just take a few seconds for members and ministers to change seats. The next item of business is a debate on motion 107. I know the name of James Kelly on offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications repeals Scotland Bill at stage 3. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on James Kelly, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. Mr Kelly, seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. The Football Act has been a failure. It has not tackled bigotry. It has been widely criticised by lawyers and human rights groups. Football fans have been treated as second-class citizens, and the Football Act is the worst piece of legislation in the history of the Scottish Parliament, and it is time for it to go. The reality is that the legislation brought forward by the Government and passed in Parliament in December 2011 against the will of every opposition party has not worked. Even every reasonable member of the chamber contends bigotry and sectarianism, including the incidents that we saw at the weekend, but the reality is that in relation to tackling sectarianism and religious intolerance, the legislation has failed. We just need to look at the religious aggravation statistics. 719 charges in relation to religious aggravations in 2016-17 are more in the year that preceded the introduction of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2016. Only 46 of those charges were in or around the football ground. That is not to gloss over religious aggravations when they occur in the football ground. They must be taken seriously whether at the football, in the street, outside a religious venue, they are in a club. The reality of those statistics shows that the problem of religious tolerance is a much wider one than simply just at the football ground. The failure of the Government's approach has adopted a simplistic approach in the sense that they thought that they could introduce legislation, and that would deal with the issue of sectarianism. Sectarianism is a complex problem that has unfortunately been with us for a long time. I thank the member for giving way. We all agree that this is a wider problem than football, but would he accept that the opinion polls regularly show that the public think that football is the main place where sectarianism is seen? I point out that the evidence of the statistics shows that 719 charges of religious aggravation are a concern to all of us. It shows that there are issues of religious intolerance in society at large, but only 46 of those charges were in or around the football ground. There is a gap between perception and reality here. What we need is a much wider and more serious conversation, and the Government will get a job here to try to bring about consensus and bring people together. Rather than cutting anti-sectarianism budgets, it needs to come up with a different approach. I am quite prepared to work along with the Government on that. On the legislation in place, we just need to look at the evidence that was submitted in section 1 to the Justice Committee. We heard from fans, human rights groups and legal experts that a law society told us that there was no gap in the law. However, it is not just that. Look at some of the human examples. Lawyers told us that the common profile of somebody who was captured under the act was a young person under the age of 20 in employment and not previously come in contact with the police or the criminal justice system. That is backed up by the recent statistics that show that nearly a third of cases did not result in any prosecution. If you look at some of the practical examples that have been provided, one was a ranger supporter who arrested at rugby park on a Thursday night, detained overnight in the police cell, released at half past five in the morning on to the streets of Kilmarnock, had to spend £60 on a taxi to get back to Glasgow to go to his work, incurred hundreds of pounds in legal fees and hundreds of pounds from missing his employment, suffered stress about the impact that was going to Harvard on his employment and ultimately found not guilty. Another example was a hyb supporter who attended the 2016 Scottish Cup final. At the end of the game, he went on to the pitch with his—he was 46—with his growing up son and daughter. Okay, he shouldn't have been on the pitch. On the pitch, he had a wonder around. He sang a few songs and then left. Then left to join the celebrations with his family. Three months later, at half past seven in the morning, 12 police officers and three police fans turned up at his house. He was arrested and charged under the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. This man was a member of the local community council in the parent board. He resigned because he felt worried about it and because of the stress. Subsequently, with the help of defence lawyers, he was able to piece together what he actually did on the pitch. As I said, he wondered around. He had a bit of a celebration. He didn't commit any public order offences. Subsequently, he missed using the charges that were dropped. If people were being treated like this, if people were being treated— Sure. Just a minute, minister. I am just not very clear where Mr Clay is going with this. Is he advocating more pitch invasions? James Kelly. What I am advocating is that the Government should stop treating football fans like second-class citizens. In summing up, it is quite clear from the evidence to the Justice Committee on section 1 and section 6 that the legislation has been widely criticised and discredited. As an approach to sectarianism that has not worked, it has created confusion and division, and it is time, therefore, to consign this discredited legislation to the dustbin of history. Thank you very much. I now call Annabelle Ewing to open for the Government. Minister, six minutes please. The bottom line here is simply this. There is a problem with abusive and offensive behaviour at Scottish football. It is a continuing problem. It cannot be excused as mere banter or passion. During the old from match last Sunday, some ranger supporters indulged themselves in singing songs with offensive lyrics added to them, including the songs, 50p, The Billy Boys and Super Rangers. Which MSP in this chamber would describe that song book as mere banter? At the same match, some of the Celtic support joined in by singing songs with offensive lyrics added to them, including Boys of the Old Brigade and Celtic Symphony. Which MSP in this chamber would describe that song book as simply being passionate? Throughout the match, missiles were thrown between the segregated fans and fflares were set off, all with no regard for the fact that children and young people were attending the match, not to mention the vast majority of people who just wanted to enjoy some good football. Who in this chamber thinks that this was all just harmless fun? Before the match, up to 500 supporters, many wearing balaclavas, marched to Ibrox to play a banner that said, Good Night, Green and White, with a silhouette image of someone wearing a green and white hoop jersey appearing to be kicked in the head. The group sang both celebratory ranger songs and offensive songs, including follow-follow containing expletives referring to the Pope and The Billy Boys chant, including offensive add-ons. The flyer that was distributed calling on supporters to participate in these disturbances described the Derby match as, and I quote, Presiding Officer, reluctantly the match against the Fenyans. Pictures of the march show some members of the group making Nazi salutes. After the match, there were reports of violence between both sets of fans on Gavenroad, including a minibus being pelted with glass. Of course, that is not simply a Glasgow problem. On the same weekend, around an hour prior to kick-off in the Edinburgh Derby, approximately 150 heart supporters congregated in an area near to Easter road. Offensive singing was heard from them, with renditions of their version, the Gorgie Boys, including offensive add-ons. A significant number of parotential devices were discharged from amongst the heart support, with three being thrown onto the pitch, resulting in kick-off being delayed. Coins were thrown at hip players on the pitch during the match, and the second half was disturbed by pitch incursions. What this tells us, Presiding Officer, is the snapshot of just one weekend of football fixtures. What this tells us, Presiding Officer, is not that the 2012 act— I wonder whether that is a ministerial statement, which is not intervened on, or is it part of the debate? Sit down, Mr Rambles. It is not a point of order, as you are well aware. It is up to the member, whoever that member is, whether or not they take interventions. What this tells us, the snapshot of just one weekend of football fixtures, is not that the 2012 act should be repealed, but that it should be strengthened and improved to tackle the behaviour that we cannot simply turn a blind eye to. Repealing the 2012 act without a viable alternative is sending the signal that this Parliament is happy to let such behaviour go unchecked and unchalloned. In the rush to repeal the 2012 act, there has been a lot of denial about the fact that it will impact negatively on communities across Scotland. Those communities know the negative impact that football can have. Yesterday, YouthLink Scotland and ScotSend Social Research published independent research that asked respondents about the use of sectarian language and the perceptions of sectarianism on social media. 76 per cent viewed football as the main contributor to sectarianism. That simply verifies the reports of the independent advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland, which noted that football provided a permissive environment that allows sectarianism another offensive and abusive behaviour to thrive. There are also the findings of the Scottish social attitudes survey 2014, which found that 88 per cent of people cited football as the most common contributor to sectarianism in Scotland. I would like to make progress. There is a specific problem with behaviour at football, and that is widely recognised by Scottish communities. Repealing the act will do nothing to reassure them. It may only be the minority of fans who behave in those ways, but that still represents an impact that is significant enough to tarnish the reputation of Scottish football and spoil the game for those who simply want to enjoy supporting their team. I will take Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful that the minister has eventually decided to take an intervention. I merely make the case that our shared revulsion at the level of sectarianism and ill behaviour in Scotland, including that associated with football, is an argument for having good law. It is not a defence for bad law. Can I say to the member to work with us to amend it and improve it? Do not take away the protection, the signal that this behaviour is not acceptable in Scottish society without a viable alternative. When we look back further than last weekend that we see that this season alone, in the season alone, there have been reports of racist behaviour from supporters, abusive behaviour towards people because of their disability or mental health conditions, and in October 2017, as I say, a man pleaded guilty for an offence under section 6 for threatening to shoot and kill Neil Lennon. Legislation has an important role to play in tackling offensive behaviour at football. We do not provide, as I said to Patrick Harvie, protection to vulnerable communities by repealing legislation. We provide it by improving legislation and updating it. In conclusion, as a responsible Government, faced with what I see as manifest a responsibility in repealing the act without a viable alternative, we remain committed to providing the best legislative framework possible to protect people from malicious harm. In that regard, of course, I commissioned Lord Bracadale to review hate crime legislation in Scotland. I say again that there is a problem with the toxic behaviour that we see at and associated with football. The persistent, abusive and offensive behaviour linked to football will not go away on its own. It is an expression of the unhealthy culture that surrounds football and this Government will do all that it can to tackle that behaviour, even in the face of the irresponsible moves today in this Parliament to repeal the act without any viable alternative being put in its place. I call Liam Kerr to open for the Conservatives. Mr Kerr, please, five minutes. I beg your pardon, Deputy Presiding Officer, six minutes. I will be generous with you. I have some time in hand. That is my position, refereeing if you will forgive in this case. I will be as brief as possible. I open for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of passing this bill. It is clear and unambiguous in its ambit. If passed, it repeals the 2012 offensive behaviour at Football Act and it should be repealed. It is bad law, but more than that, it is unnecessary law. The objectives of the act were laudable to tackle sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour at football. However, as the committee and this Parliament heard repeatedly, the offending behaviour in which the 2012 act was designed to address was and remains fully covered by the substantive existing criminal law. According to the law society, all 287 charges brought under section 1 of the act in 2015-16 could have been prosecuted under preexisting legislation. The committee heard from senior police officer, ACC Higgins, who said that, in the absence of the act, someone who was arrested for singing an offensive song would almost certainly have been charged with a breach of the peace or a section 38 offence. Professor Leverick was unequivocal. Breach of the peace, section 38 and a number of statutory aggravations are in place. Offensive behaviour at football matches could be dealt with under pre-2012 legislation. It may be argued that that is not a consideration, however, if the act had worked. If it had achieved its objective to tackle sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour at football, but has it? First of all, I refer the chamber to Ms Ewing's comments about just how ineffective this has been and how little it has achieved that we just heard. Dr Joseph Webster told the Justice Committee that the 2012 act has made the policing of sectarianism more difficult because fans have got wise how to circumvent the law. Worse, he went on to say that it has led to a deterioration in relationships between the fan bases and between them and the police. And one of the song sheets that George Adam assured us at stage 1 had all been put away since 2012. Well, 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 Webster elaborated by talking of the reality of what is going on. What fans have done is changed their behaviour by holding their hands in front of their mouths while singing certain songs in order to prevent CCTV from capturing them singing them. They have replaced certain songs in chance with other words to skirt the law. So we have an act that has added nothing to the legislative landscape, has not achieved what it intended and has actually been counterproductive, redirecting, camouflaging but not stopping offensive behaviours and prejudices. However, I, like many, including some SNP-backed ventures, whilst agreeing with the principle of repealing the act, remain concerned at the possibility of a particular message being sent out. I understand that concern and have reflected on it at length, but I am persuaded that it is not an issue. I just do not accept, and no evidence has been presented, that there is a whole cadre of people sitting at home saying, if only the act was not there, I would be out singing right now. If those MSPs get rid of the act, they clearly think that those songs are okay. Yes, Rona Mackay. Does the member agree that the equality groups who are actually frightened to go to football matches do disregard what they said at the Justice Committee evidence session? Liam Kerr. I certainly do not disregard the evidence that I was given. I think that that was extremely important evidence, but I point the member to the point made by Liam McArthur in stage 1 earlier today. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible to be giving those groups some kind of false reassurance that this act is going to protect them. What we have to be doing is taking this away and giving them a proper message that we will protect them. I also think that there is also a rather unpleasant assumption inherent in the argument about a message to the football fans. Football fans are being treated as some kind of homogenous, malevolent, ignorant entity. The evidence from SFA, Police Scotland and Fans Group showed unequivocally that the number of football fans engaging in criminal behaviour is minimal. Going back to my stats earlier, there were 287 charges, not even convictions under this legislation last year. Just think how many people go to football in Scotland each weekend. To say that ineffective, ill-drafted, counterproductive legislation should not be repealed, because hypothetically that might be received by a tiny minority of people in a particular way is not a good enough reason not to repeal it. ACC Higgins said, I cannot arrest my way out of changing hate crime and sectarianism in this country, a far wider approach is needed to challenging behaviour that is inappropriate. He is right, there is a problem with sectarianism but it is not exclusive to football and the offensive behaviour act was disproportionate in targeting fans of the sport. Dr Stewart Weighton was clear to the committee, has the singing decreased? No, it has been redirected. Is the law working? No, we need to replace it with other methods of behavioural change, with the most sensible probably being early years education. I agree and furthermore the police and courts need to use the powers that they already have to stop this. Speakers throughout today will no doubt address those solutions but on the substantive point, is the bill to repeal an ill-drafted, ineffective counterproductive act in a manner that will not send the message people who are concerned about the right thing to do? Absolutely yes. I look forward to voting for it at decision time tonight. I call Daniel Johnson over Labour five minutes, Mr Johnson. I hope that I got it right this time. I understood that but if you want to get me next for a minute that would be fine. I would like to begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling and concern that the Offensive Behavioural Football Act and, in turn, its repeal elicits on all sides of this debate. I understand the worry that has been expressed from the SNP benches and the concern about the scourge of sectarianism that lies behind it. While I disagree with them about this bill to repeal the act, I share their concern about the pernicious aspect of our culture and their conviction that we must act against it. However, let me say this seriously and gently to them. The 2012 act does not serve the purpose that is claimed nor they purport. It provides no additional power to the police or prosecutors. It has had unintended and unjustifiable human consequences but, above all else, this act has been profoundly illiberal in its effect. I clarify for me just what the repeal of the act will do to help to counter sectarianism. What repeal of the act will do will enable us to use the existing law that we will be able to practice and focus on the causes of sectarianism rather than the context. It is clear from the evidence that we have heard through stages 1 and 2 of the passage of the bill and, through the amendments that we have just debated, that there is no legal need for the offensive behaviour at the Football Act. As other speakers have mentioned, the Lord Advocate's instruction to prosecutors to stop bringing forward cases under OBFA and to use alternative statute in common law is an acknowledgement of the legal redundancy of the law and its time on its statute's book is coming to an end. However, there is a danger that the repeal of the act is viewed from a narrow technical legal perspective. The real issue with the legislation is not its legal effect but the very real human impact and the damage it has done. It is when you hear the stories of the people caught up and the unintended consequences and the misguided exercise of the law that the real need for its repeal is clear. The dad, who has been charged three times only to have his case thrown out of court each time, with those experiences that not only cost him £4,000 in legal fees, they cost him his job but, perhaps worst of all, they cost him the opportunity of being present at the birth of his first child because he was in court, or the man arrested for simply asking why his friend, who was at the football with, was being detained by the police and apparently asking this question was deemed threatening and offensive in and of itself. Again, found not guilty at court. Football fans are losing work, losing money and having their family lives disrupted. This act is putting people with no prior contact of the criminal justice system into a cell and into court only to be found not guilty, but perhaps most troubling are the stories of the ones that do not just tell, just in a moment of the dysfunction in the law, it is the stories that demonstrate the fundamentally illiberal consequences of this legislation. Football fans have been arrested for wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and irony of ironies for flying a banner with the words acts that act on it. Whether you agree with those statements being made or not, people have a right of political expression. In any other context, those acts would be viewed as innocuous or even celebrated as people exercising their civic rights. On that point, I am happy to give way to Fulton MacGregor. I think that the member will know that many members in these benches have sympathy with some of the things that he has mentioned, but would you not agree that that is a problem with implementation of the act rather than the act itself? What we should have all been doing is working together to get those aspects right. I would have some sympathy with the member if the police were saying that they would not be able to use the existing law to prosecute many of the actions, but they do. The evidence from the police committee was very clear that they would be able to use other laws such as the Criminal Justice Act in 2010 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or, indeed, common law breach of the police, but ultimately what we need to do is tackle the underlying causes. The reality of that is that, when you hear those examples and stories, it is hard not to conclude that the act is the liberal and it is wrong. The defenders of the act, and in previous stages of this bill, and indeed in the chamber today, have fallen back on raising the question of what message does it send if we vote to repeal it. I acknowledge that it is a legitimate function of legislation to communicate what is acceptable and what is not. Likewise, the things that we vote for and against in this Parliament also send messages, but the question that I would pose is this. What message does it send if we let this law stand? A law that provides no additional power to the authorities, a law that has damaged trust in the police, a law that has had huge personal consequences for individuals and a law that is so profoundly liberal. Scottish Labour is proud to support James Kelly's bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, and we just hope that members from right across the chamber can join us at decision time this evening. I am really disappointed with a lot of what I have heard so far. The Scottish Green Party has always been opposed to the legislation. I have not personally been opposed, I am now. As I said in the previous debate, I think that James Kelly has made his case on the legal evidence that we have heard, the evidence of fans that we have heard, and I am particularly persuaded by the human rights aspect. I would like to make the case that Shinty is our national sport, but most of what I would say is that football is. To have a Government minister trash Scottish football in the way that she did, that was the purpose of my intervention. All the evidence that we have is that there is a highest percentage of residents across Europe who attend football matches in Scotland. We have heard from the police that they are perfectly capable of policing without the legislation. We have also heard from the police that, with the exception of two clubs, every senior football club in Scotland has held football matches without a police presence. The idea—this is put by people in various quarters—that fans across Scotland are at war with the police, nothing could be further from the truth. I should have declared at the outset my various associations mentioned in my register of interest with Heart of Melody and Football Club. Obviously, it would abhor behaviour like you outlined, but there have been significant changes. I attended my first football match in the city more than 50 years ago. I placed my first football match in the city more than 40 years ago. There have been significant changes. This is a world apart, and that is not just simply down to the removal of alcohol from stadiums or all seated stadiums. There has been a huge move in respect of fan behaviour. The situation that you outlined, no-one would support it. The language that we all use is very important. If you want to intervene, I am very happy to take it. I am very grateful for the member taking the intervention. I was simply repeating what happened last weekend. It was a snapshot of what happened last weekend. If the member does not feel that that is suggestive that, for some fans—I agree, it is the minority fans, I have always said that—there is a problem in and around football. I do not know what would need to happen to convince the member that there still is a problem. John Finnie? On the rare occasions when I go to a neutral venue, I often go to see Nearn County. Can I assure you that there is no problem there? There is no problem at the vast majority of grounds. The behaviour that you outlined is behaviour that would be taking place anyway on many occasions. It is behaviour that is taking place, notwithstanding this being on the statute book, which I think has to be mentioned. The language that is used—I think that we all, every one of us, regardless of which side of the debate we are on, have to respect the parliamentary process. The legislation that we are seeking to repeal tonight was no more forced through than the repeal legislation that I hope will pass tonight is being forced through. There has been scrutiny in both instances. I say that James Kelly very clearly made this debate. We have heard very compelling evidence that has been alluded to a number of times. We have heard it from Professor Fiona Leverick about this alleged gap. We have heard it from ACC Higgins, who I think articulated in many instances the dilemma that the police find themselves in. They are only going to be criticised, regardless, I suspect, but they deal with the legislation that is in front of them. What we have heard very clearly is that there is a sufficency of legislation there already for them to deal with the issues that you have outlined. Going forward, the most important thing is that we do—if I can just say one aspect—about the tone of debate in the language that has been used. I heard Mr Kelly in response to a question saying that I will work with anyone in addressing the issue of sectarianism. I heard groans around me. Let us know when we will be groaning, but let us all get together, let us recognise that this is a problem for all of us. I am very happy to work with anyone and everyone to address the scourge that is there. We will be voting for Mr Kelly's built-in effort. I remind members to speak through the chair and not to use the term you in the chamber. For the upteenth time, please just say the member or name the member. That is to all members present. I now call on Liam McArthur to open for the Liberal Democrats. Four minutes, please, Mr McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. No one in this chamber condones sectarian or offensive behaviour. Every single one of us, I believe, is genuinely committed to confronting and combating hate crime wherever form it takes, wherever it takes place, and no MSP or political party can credibly claim unmonopoly on caring about these issues. Given the tone and content of some of what has been said during the scrutiny of the bill and again this afternoon, it is important not to lose sight of these basic truths. It is also imperative, I believe, that we recognise our collective responsibility in reinforcing the unambiguous message that the law will continue to provide protections against offensive behaviour wherever it takes place and continue to provide protections against threatening communications. Of course, the legislative landscape for tackling hate crime can be improved. I remain confident that the Lord Bracadale's review will help us to go some way to achieving that, but it is both wrong and increasingly irresponsible for the Government to continue fanning anxieties about alleged gaps in the law. That is simply not supported by the evidence. The Law Society of Scotland could not be clearer. The offending behaviour, which the 2012 act was designed to address, was and remains fully covered by the substantive and existing criminal law. The bill, if passed, will not leave any gap in the criminal law as existing measures, both statutory and common law, will allow for the prosecution of any relevant offending behaviour. Similarly, as others have said, ACC Higgins assured the Justice Committee that, in the event of repeal, the police would continue to quote, address the behaviour using other legislation. Already, we see the Lord Advocate instructing prosecutors to stop using this discredited, ineffective and illiberal 2012 act and instead to use pre-existing statutory offences or common law. Neither Police Scotland nor the Lord Advocate are talking about gaps in the law or weakened protections. They recognise that this is neither true nor, indeed, helpful in providing assurances to those who have been voicing concerns. I hope that the minister will now follow suit. After all, while legislation can and does play a role in conveying a message about what we, as a society, find acceptable or unacceptable, it is surely irresponsible to allow a misconception to go on challenge that a law is providing protection to people where that is not the case. I struggle to accept that the wrong message is sent by repealing an act that does not provide the protection that its supporters claim. However, repeal of the 2012 act is not a do-nothing strategy, as the minister and some of her backbenchers have argued again today. In the face of sectarianism that we all accept continues to blight too many of our communities. Yes, it will help in removing from the statute book a piece of legislation that not only has proved ineffective but has actually done more harm than good in terms of our efforts to combat sectarianism and encourage a change of attitudes and behaviours. However, repeal must go hand in hand with a renewed commitment to taking steps that we know from evidence are effective. As Danny Boyle from Bemis told the committee, the most sensible thing is to create a universal approach to tackling hate crime that is preventative and rooted in education but which also has a strong legal remedy when necessary. This is a view supported by the Government's advisory group on tackling sectarianism, which argued that the foundations for change rest in initiatives that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding, recognising that councils, churches, football clubs, schools, the media, community organisations—all of them are key in delivering effective grassroots solutions. I commend and congratulate James Kelly for his hard work and his perseverance on the issue and in bringing forward the bill. I thank all those who helped the justice committee in our own deliberations. However, I look forward to Parliament taking a step shortly that it should never have had to take in removing an ineffective, counterproductive and illiberal piece of legislation from the statute book. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr MacArthur. I now move to the open debate. Speeches of a tight four minutes, please. I call James Dornan to be followed by Maurice Corry. Mr Dornan, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If ever the need for the Offensive Behaviour Act was highlighted at this weekend, after bringing the union bears' march to the attention of others on Twitter, I've been threatened. The police have been contacted and I've got meeting arranged with them. I've been told that my 83-year-old mum was dead and I was subject to infantile abuse from grown men as well as usual utter bigoted nonsense that you get from the extreme wings of both sides of the Glasgow footballing divide. There's no doubt in the last few weeks there's been an upsurge in blatant sectarian singing at games. You'll all have seen on Sunday the vile sight of balaclava wearing nazi salutant thugs parading our streets like some kind of paramilitary outfit, and it seems clear to me that the perceived imminent repeal of the act has emboldened some of the worst to go more public with their intention to show who is boss. Presiding Officer, the Offensive Behaviour Act was brought in because legislation was clearly required to deal with the scourge of sectarianism that blights our game, and despite what our opponents continue to proclaim, that did not happen because of the game of shame. That was just the final straw. In 2009, things were so bad that UNICEF had to ask for reassurance that rangers would stop singing the famine song. In 2011, the Catholic Church wrote about their concerns about anti-Catholic songs and chants at the League Cup final. Just this morning, Neil Lennon was saying that sectarianism was equal to racism and it should be dealt with accordingly. I wonder if Mr Kelly thinks that UNICEF, Mr Lennon and the Catholic Church were wrong to raise these concerns and that they should just have let the people sing. Please do not tell me that football can deal with this. As was highlighted once again by yesterday's report that SPFL delegates have constantly had the reports of sectarians singing at grounds ignored, the football authorities are clearly too lilylivoured to take on the vested interests of the big two football clubs and have no intention of battling this head-on. Therefore, it has been left to the Government and I had hoped this Parliament to deal with it. Do not insult us by saying that there is no support for legislation. The youth-linked report that was mentioned earlier on shows that 80 per cent of people think that there is a problem with sectarian language and social media, much of it relating to football, and 72 per cent of them think that posting comments or images on social media which are offensive towards someone because they are a Protestant or a Catholic, because of some degree of harm to Scotland's image and reputation. More important, 68 per cent of them thought that there should be sentencing of some kind for posting sectarian content online. The youth-linked report that those young people who responded to that think that there is a problem with the offensive behaviour act that this Government put in and has been opposed by every other member in this building, is that they probably think that it is not harsh enough. I urge every politician in the Scottish Parliament to ask themselves if this is the type of country that they want to see portrayed to the rest of the world, because I accept what you have said, that there are other ways of dealing with this. Those other ways are being attempted as we speak just now. You have all got issues with the act, but the way to deal with it is not to repeal the act, but to work with the Government to make it better. I hear James Kelly and others saying that they will work with the Government. Why haven't you been doing that for the last number of years? You wait until you get your victory and then you say, now we'll work with you from a position of success. I think that this is a pyrrhic success to say the very least. Just think of the message repealing this act sends. It seems like Sunday will become more regular as these groups of fans become more emboldened. The truth is that, deliberately or not, those that vote for repeal tonight will be enabling this type of behaviour. The only consideration that we should have when we vote today is will this decision make Scotland a better place to live in? Given what we have seen in just the past weekend alone, can anyone in this chamber honestly say that by repealing the act today, we will have done that? Thank you, Mr Dornan. I call Maurice Corry, please, to be followed by Gerard Lamont. Mr Corry. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak today as we get set to repeal this piece of unnecessary, illiberal and unworkable legislation. This position was accurately described by Dr Stuart Weighton, a senior lecturer at Abertaire University, when he spoke to the Justice Committee recently and said that the act criminalises words and thoughts. He said that we hide behind the public order issue, but, essentially, it is about the criminalisation of words and thoughts and the arresting and imprisoning of people because we do not like their words. Dr Joseph Webster of Queen's University Belfast, and he should know, also told the committee that the act is not justified on free speech grounds. Those are not concerns that are only by academics. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that the restrictions of freedom of expression made by the act are contrary to human rights treaties. In 2014, it went as far as reporting its 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. Professor Tom Devine labelled the act counterproductive. The Celtic Trust has described how the act is unjust and says that it has sourced relationships between the police and the fans. Fans' groups have highlighted instances of injustice caused by the act, which have only left football fans feeling more isolated. Paul Quigley of fans against criminalisation in his submission to the committee told of a ranger's fan arrested for holding a banner that simply said, acts the act. I will give way to John Mason. John Mason, please sit down, Ms McAlpine. I thank the member for giving way. Is it his argument that there should be complete freedom of speech for anyone to say anything or would he restrict freedom of speech in some way? I thank the member for that comment. The answer is that the existing law covers that, and it is there already. It is unnecessary law to add on top of it, so it can be easily charged for that, and you know that as well as I do. He also spoke of a motherwell fan who was arrested, held in a Greenock prison for four days and then convicted of singing a song that simply included profanity about a rival team. I do not appreciate swearing nor profanity at any sporting event, but I certainly do not believe that it is worthy of a criminal conviction. Andrew Jenkins of Supporters Direct Scotland, who submitted that the act is counterproductive, said that you cannot have legislation that applies to one Pacific sector of society, that is grossly unfair. Those comments come because of the Scottish Government's failure to reach out to the football community. Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association spoke to the Justice Committee of the Public Relations Failures that accommodated this act and how it had left fans feeling targeted. Not just football fan groups have pointed out the unfairness of this act in only targeting football fans and matches alone. Stuart Reagan of the former chief executive of the Scottish Football Association said that the football had been targeted and singled out, and as a piece of legislation has been put in place that focuses exclusively on football, no other sport has had that and no other element of society has had that. Between 2004 and 2013, at the T in the park events, there were 3,600 incidents, 3 attempted murders, 3 drug-related deaths, 10 sexual assaults, 1 abduction and 2,000 drug offences. A summit was not called by this Government after T in the park events and had no emergency legislation put in place. It is clear that the football world at large wants to see the act repealed and that the general public does as well. A lot of people and organisations took part in the member's bill consultation and a hefty 71 per cent of the respondents backed the repeal of sections 1 to 5 and 62 per cent supported the repeal of sections 6 to 9. The act has failed to tackle hate crime. The black and ethnic minority infrastructure in Scotland group has said that we are not convinced that it is appropriate or effectively tackles hate crime. The assistant chief constable Higgins talked to the committee about how we cannot arrest our way out of taking Higgins. No, I am so sorry. You must conclude it. That means now, please sit down. I now call Johann Lamont to be followed by George Adam, Ms Lamont please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When thinking about what I was going to say in this debate, I made a number of efforts to write a speech but thought that it was difficult to judge how this debate was going to be conducted, whether it was going to be like stage 1, whether things would have moved on. I have to say to the minister that I regret, in the strongest terms, the tone that she chose to use in introducing the Scottish Government's position. I do not think that she served her own party well to impun the motives of everybody in this chamber who disagrees with her and captures it in a description of what happened at the weekend, the suggestion that people in here celebrated that, thought that it was a good idea or in any way approved of it. The fact of the matter is that there is no monopoly, as has already been said, of concern about sectarianism in this chamber. I recall from the very beginning when this legislation first came into being, the troubled way, the way in which we on our benches tested it, worried about it, I did it as just a spokesperson and as leader. I did not take the decision lightly to support James Kelly's legislation and it is offensive, if I might use that term, to suggest otherwise. It is not whether we support sectarianism or not, the issue is how best to tackle it. At the heart of the bill that acts, there is a problem that it conflates being offensive with being sectarian. As a consequence, people are caught up in legislation with no means of avoiding it. We have heard all sorts of examples of that. I find it deeply offensive that there is a suggestion that everybody else in this chamber is somehow irresponsible and has not thought those through issues in great detail. I know that there were people, including the churches, who wanted us to tackle the question of sectarianism, but I doubt very much if those same churches and organisations thought that young people should be caught up in the legal system for wearing a Shea Guevara T-shirt, or having the audacity to express a political view. Do not call them in defence of your position, they were arguing about the question of sectarianism, not about the merits of this legislation. Again today we hear the argument about the fact that it sends out a message. We have already said, and we have heard in here, that this characterisation of football and football fans is simply wrong. It does not happen routinely, even in the old firm matches and games that people support. It does not routinely happen at Pollock football ground, it does not happen in grounds across the country, and we need to name the problem in order to deal with it. It also was told that it sends out a message about our views on sectarianism. I am not sure how much of a comfort that would be to me if my son or my daughter got caught up in the legal system for doing something that they were not even aware was in offence. None of us would want that from a member of our family, and yet that is the reality for all too many people who have been caught up by this legislation. What message does it, in all seriousness, send out about our commitment to tackling sectarianism, when the budgets for programmes that educate our young people and talk about those issues have been cut from £3 million to £1.5 million? The reality of that is that there is heavy lifting to be done on that, not simply past the legislation and hope for the best. We need to do the heavy job of winning hearts and minds on those issues. There is no easy fix. Of course, the other argument that is deployed is, as I have said, to impugn the motives of the political parties who oppose the SNP's legislation in this regard. That argument might work in here. It might work as some comfort to SNP-backed benches who have been whipped in to supporting it. The only reason why we are doing this is because we oppose them politically. However, we are talking not about what works in here but the reality out there in the real world. Can you please conclude? Sure. I urge people to support the James Kelly's Bill because, out there in the real world, it is not working. It is having dire consequences. Experts and individuals from across Scotland have told us that. We have a duty to listen to you. Thank you very much. I call George Adam. The last speaker in the open debate, then we move to closing speeches. Members have been warned. Everyone knows that I am a football fan and that it is an important part of my life. That is the way that I will approach this debate and have done during this whole process. Our national game is an important part of our country's life and can, on some occasions, affect the national mood as well. The act is about offensive behaviour at football, something that football fans have experienced at various points and matches in their life. Football is so much to me that, along with Gordon Scott and my colleagues on the board of the St Morne Independent Supporters Association, we led a fan buy-out of the St Morne Football Club. I was involved in this from the start because I believe that fans play an important role in football and at every club. However, like most teams, we have a fierce and competitive rivalry with another team. In our case, it is Greenup Martin. Do people sometimes go over the score row at our derby matches? Probably. However, on the whole, they are good-tempered affairs with enjoyable banter between the fans. Currently, it is at the top of the championship, and Morton is fourth. Both teams could be promoted to the Premier League this year, and I hope that we both are. Anerdy Renfusier derby in Scotland's Premier division for the first time since the 1980s will do me and probably Mr McMillan now quite nicely. The thing is that I do not have a hatred of Greenup Martin. That is where I have difficulty with the whole Rangers Celtic thing. I do not get it. The hatred and bile towards one another to me seems alien. In the political world, I have disagreements with many in here, but I do not hate them. I do not sing songs of hate towards them. I just have my debate, say my piece and we move on. However, the majority of football fans behave themselves. It is a small, very vocal minority that tend to bring our beautiful game into disrepute. I was reminded of this on Monday when I attended my local gym, and I know, Presiding Officer, that you are wondering what maybe I should get my money back from that gym. However, while I was there in the cafe having my post-training role in baking, I listened to a couple of Rangers and Celtic fans having discussed the football match. It was good, clean, fun, filled with humour, and it was a nice reminder to me that, in this week of all weeks, not all old firm fans are like what were led to believe, not one sectarian comment, not one mention of the various cultural aspects of both teams, but then we look at what happened on Sunday. The union bears marched under their banners of hate, a young Rangers fan whose hearing was damaged, a footballer abused at an airport departure lounge and the old songboots from both sides coming back to the fore. We had all the usual chaos that ensured an old firm game in Glasgow in the west after that game. We know that those things continue to happen, and one of the reasons why I support the act is the fact that it protects the majority of fans from that behaviour. I am not going to go over all the original reasons and all the debates that we have had in the past, but let me say some of the things that were said by some of the people that came in front of us. Stonewall Scotland expressed concerns about repealing the act. We would have concerns that an outright repeal of the act would send a worrying message that prejudice-based and threatening behaviour at football is acceptable. Is that truly what we want to put out to the world? People are actually thinking that that could be acceptable at football. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities said that we urge the extension rather than the repeal of that legislation. This week, BBC Scotland reported that former SPFL match reporters stated that the reports on sectarianism and unacceptable behaviour are being ignored by football authorities. If the act goes, not only does it leave a gap in the law, as was said by the Crown Office and Procure Fiscal Service, it puts anonies back on the football authorities to do something about that issue. I, for one, do not hold out any hope on that one. I believe that this debate should be about us looking at doing post-legitim scrutiny. Let's not say that this place is not good at doing post-legitim scrutiny. Let's look at this act. Let's decide that we're going to make changes and make it better. I urge everyone here to not repeal, but to look at this act and make the act better. I now move to closing speeches. I call on Neil Findlay to close for Labour. Four minutes, please, Mr Findlay. I think that, like everyone here, I love sectarianism. I love bigotry and I detest prejudice. Like most members of this Parliament, I'm committed to working towards a tolerant, cohesive society where people learn about each other, understand each other and love and peace with one another. As Johann Lamont said in her speech, we must put time, effort and money into addressing those issues that seek to divide our society and promote hatred and undermine social solidarity. I oppose the offensive behaviour of the Football Act from the start because it is a misguided and simplistic attempt to address a complex societal problem. I strongly believe that we should repeal the act by passing this bill today. I support the repeal of the act because, as Liam McArthur said, it is illiberal. For this Parliament to restrict and take a backward step in relation to human rights is wrong, and the bill singles out one group of sports fans who have their rights removed from them for stepping across the threshold of a football stadium on match day. I support repeal because it is based on class prejudice. The act has, in the main, though not exclusively, criminalised young working class men whose actions are seen as distasteful by those who believe that they have a God-given right to be the arbiters of good test and impose their beliefs, their test and belief systems and values on others. I think that it was probably on the subject that talked about the fact that football was pricing itself out of the reach of the ordinary working class guy. Now that you are saying to us that this bill is targeted at the exact same people that you are saying has been priced out of the game, how does that work? Exactly, Mr Dornan. I think that football is pricing itself away from its roots, but people are so committed to their teams that they will spend that money, whatever, to go to matches and give sacrifices to the rest of their lives. That is the reality of it, Mr Dornan. I support the repeal, as many members have said, because it is unworkable, as the views expressed by the police, lawyers, prosecutors and judges. I support the repeal of it because, rather than uniting fans, communities and the police acting as one against sectarianism, it has increased tensions, resentment and division between the police and fans. We should seek to address sectarianism across society as a whole. We all want young people and indeed older people growing up learning to be tolerant, empathetic and respectful to all, and in my experience, the overwhelming majority are. We are more likely to tackle sectarianism through education, through youth work and in our schools, colleges, universities, pubs, bookies, shops and workplaces, and by continuing to fund anti-sectarianism projects, youth projects and PSE in schools—all areas where funding has been slashed. That would be a better investment than demonising young football supporters. I am pleased that members rejected all of their amendments for the reasons set out by James Kelly, and I hope that the issues around section 6 will be addressed in the review of hate crime. Finally, I commend my colleague James Kelly for his diligent and committed work in taking the bill through to this stage of the parliamentary process. Taking a bill on your own and to this stage is a huge commitment, not just of the member but of their staff team. They have done this with skill, reason and principle and have united all of the opposition parties. I hope, even at this late stage, that Government-backed benchers, who know in their hearts and minds that the Football Act should be repealed, will tonight do the right thing and support the bill. The act was ill-conceived, badly drafted and difficult to implement. That is the right move for this Parliament to make today. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. I call on Margaret Mitchell to post that we can serve this five minutes, Ms Mitchell. It is clear from the contributions today that, although this is a contentious bill, all the opposition parties are united in their support for repeal of the 2012 Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Scotland Act. When the original bill was debated at stage 3 in 2012, concerns were raised that it was badly drafted. It failed to define the behaviour that it was trying to criminalise and it did not include the definition of sectarianism. In addition to that, there were warnings that the original act restricted freedom of speech and discriminated against football fans. Those warnings have now come to fruition. The Justice Committee has heard during the passage of this bill that bad drafting has resulted in the act being applied inconsistently by police officers and, as Liam Kerr pointed out, conviction rates under the act are at three-year low. The 2012 act created two new offences, section 1, which covers offensive behaviour at regulated football matches. Section 6 covers threatening communications and applies more generally, rather than being directed solely at football fans. Through the scrutiny of the 2012 act, it was argued that, by stakeholders, existing measures were already in place to deal with those two offences. That view was again expressed in the evidence that was heard by the Justice Committee at stage 1 of the repeal bill before it is to date when stakeholders argued that section 1 offence can be prosecuted under other offences, including breach of the peace and section 30 of the criminal justice and licensing act 2010. The section 6 offence provision refers to threatening communication with the intention of stirring up hatred on religious grounds, and the hated arguments that the scrapping of section 6 will leave a gap in the law has not been helpful today, and I would ask the minister to reflect on that. The fact is that the offending behaviour that the 2012 act was designed to address was and remains fully covered by the substantive and existing criminal law. Section 38 of the criminal justice and licensing Scotland act would cover section 6 provisions. Moreover, as Jane Kelly pointed out, in the case of Love Against Procurate of Fiscal Stirling 2014, religious aggravation was added to section 38 offence. In terms of the Government's amendments to preserve section 6 for 12 months, the law society makes the very pertinent point that the timescale of 12 months could also be seen mildly to complicate what might otherwise comprise a straightforward repeal of the 2012 act, which will and has attracted much publicity. It will be confusing to the public to believe that the 2012 act has been repealed, but then to find that prosecutions under the section 6 act could continue for a further period. The intent behind James Kelly's bill was that, once royal assent was achieved, the bill would be repealed immediately. Again, according to the law society, continuing any of the provisions is not required, as the transitional arrangements will take account and provide safeguards for any existing prosecutions. Everyone has agreed that sectarian behaviour and intending to stir up religious hatred is totally unacceptable. If that has to be stamped out, wherever it exists, then it will require all stakeholders and, as John Finnie said, parliamentarians too, to work together. As a start, the Scottish Football Supporters Association has made some helpful general points about the need for a national campaign to educate on abusive language and behaviour. There will, going forward, be an opportunity to discuss all those issues and the best way to resolve them in a measured fashion in the context of Lord Brackendale's future review. I hope that that is how the chamber determines this evening that we will move forward. In the meantime, the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the 2012 acts repeal this afternoon. The Government's five minutes, minister. Today we have heard a lot about the problems people associate with the act, but no tangible solutions to the problem of abusive and offensive behaviour at Scottish Football that I described in my opening statement. All offensive behaviour at football has to be met head-on to be defeated. Why do we continue to excuse aggression at football that manifests itself as racist, religious, homophobic, slurs and bigotry as simply banter or passion? That is not acceptable. Legislation sets the standard for what is and is not acceptable in modern society. Therefore, legislation has an important role to play in tackling all society problems, including offensive behaviour at football. We recognise that legislation on its own will never resolve any social issues. The act has always been just one element of our work to tackle these problems. When the act was introduced, offensive behaviour at and relating to football was at a high, with bewildered public witnessing pitchside vannas between club managers and bullets and explosive devices being sent to prominent Catholics through the post. I am baffled as to why so many people in this chamber think that the pre-existing legislation is preferable to amending the 2012 act. Repeal is going to solve nothing. Repealing the act will have consequences. It will leave a gap in legislation. I point to the Crown Office's evidence that no Opposition member has even seen fit to mention in the debate because it does not suit their narrative. It will put constraints on the ability of prosecutors and our courts to tackle offensive behaviour at football. It will lead to a lack of continuity, protection to vulnerable and minority communities. I can see no positive in repealing the act without putting a viable alternative in place. If the argument is that the act should be repealed because it is not working, then how can the answer be to go backwards? It is naive to believe that returning to the pre-act days will do anything other than return us to the circumstances that led to the need for the act in the first place. We have invested £13 million since 2012 in tackling sectarianism more than any other administration, with £9.8 million having been directly invested to support community-based organisations to deliver grass-root work. The unprecedented investment to date has allowed the delivery of nearly 200 projects across Scotland, including work with schools, football organisations, churches, youth groups, adult education organisations, employers, prisons and local authorities. That work has made and is continuing to make a huge difference in communities across Scotland. Despite attempts to reduce the agenda to legislation and football, it has never been simply about those issues. If the act is repealed, we will continue, of course, to support work to tackle sectarianism to fulfil the recommendations of the independent advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. In the next financial year, I will ensure that the current £0.5 million of funding is protected by a real-terms increase to support the agenda. As a responsible Government, we are committed to taking whatever action is needed to offer protection to our most vulnerable communities, including restating and reinstating an improved version of the provisions in section 6. I have also given the clear commitment to considering all of the recommendations to be made by Lord Bracadale and the outcome of his review of hate crime legislation in Scotland expected shortly. I ask all members in this chamber to think very carefully about what they are doing today to consider whether they want to repeal a piece of legislation that was introduced to tackle a problem that we all know exists, whether they want to take away protection that minority communities and organisations such as Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Women's Convention have told us that they value and whether they want to send the signal that offensive and abusive behaviour is acceptable at football. The repercussions of repeal will be felt by the very people that we wish to protect. We have heard arguments that the act is an infringement on the human rights of a minority football fans, but when should we ask ourselves who has the greater priority, a person's freedom to sing an offensive song or chant, or the victim's right not to be humiliated, vilified and marginalised by offensive songs and chants? The vast majority of fans do not sing offensive or sectarian songs, do not march to matches wearing balaclavas and carrying banners glorifying violence and do not need to worry about the police intervening in their behaviour because they have no reason to. The majority of football fans are tired of those who continue to behave in this hateful and prejudicial way. The Scottish Government stands on the side of the tens of thousands of football supporters, the length and breadth of Scotland, who are fed up with offensive and threatening behaviour being part of the Scottish game. We shall shortly find out whether the opposition members of this Parliament stand with them or stand against them. James Kelly is the member in charge to wind up until 5 o'clock, Mr Kelly. Liam McArthur was right when he said that it was important to get the tone of this debate right, and there is a responsibility on all of us as MSPs as we debate these challenging issues. I have to say that I really regret the fact that some of the speeches from the SNP benches tried to associate the events from the weekend with the actions to repeal the legislation. I thought that was really poor. It goes without saying that every MSP in this Parliament across all the parties rejects and condemns hateful and bigoted behaviour wherever it takes place, in a football stadium, in a street or in a club. There has been a lot of discussion about what message this sends out, retaining the existing legislation or repealing that legislation. The problem with the existing legislation is that it sends a very weak message. The reality of the situation is that only one political party has supported the legislation when it was introduced in 2011 and all the way through to this debate on the repeal bill. What message does that send when only the governing party has signed up to such discredited legislation? Even as a piece of law has been criticised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, it said that it could be open to challenge under ECHR. The law society thought that the vague definitions in the act and the wide reach of the act also meant that it could be challenged under courts in this country. What that results in is weak legislation. With weak legislation, it has a weak message. It completely rejects the idea that keeping the legislation in place in some way sends out a powerful message. It is completely not the case. There has been a lot of discussion also about how we move forward, what the alternative is, and I think that that is very important. I think that the first thing that we need is a proper discussion to understand all the issues. As I said in my opening speech, the fact that we have 719 religious agrivation charges that are highest for four years shows that there is a major issue here. What we need away from this debate is a proper growing up discussion. I am grateful to James Kelly for giving way. When the act was first being debated, I made the case that what was needed then was a comprehensive hate crime review, and now that that is taking place, does James Kelly agree that once the polarised debate on the question of repeal is over—and we will be supporting that as he knows tonight—we all have a responsibility across political parties to embrace whatever positive changes come through from a well-considered and well-thought-out hate crime review that is currently taking place and taking actions as a result of its recommendations? I think that Patrick Harvie makes a very powerful point, and I can remember him making those arguments in 2011. The bracket deal review gives an opportunity to make hate crime legislation more effective and efficient, allied to robust pre-existing laws, and that will send out a powerful message. The other thing that is needed, as the justice committee highlighted in their evidence, is proper investment in education and communities to tackle sectarianism. It was regrettable that Annabelle Ewing said that nobody offered any solution. She clearly was not listening to the speech that Neil Findlay gave when he argued not only for those types of projects but for proper funding, rather than cutting funding, as the SNP Government has done. They preach about sectarianism and we all support that, but they do that on one hand and then cut the budgets on the other. No, I want to take the intervention. One of the most powerful speeches in the debate was that of John Finnie. He speaks as a former police officer, as a football supporter, as somebody who supported the original legislation in 2011. He was right to express concerns about the minister's contribution at the start of the debate, which underlined the point that I made that there is an attitude in so many SNP that football fans are second-class citizens. John Finnie made a lot of very powerful points about how we move the debate forward if repeal is successful tonight. Johann Lamont talked about the real world. The reality is that, in the real world, this act has been a failure. It has completely failed to tackle the issues of bigotry and religious intolerance. It has been unfair to target football fans, a legislative disaster and completely illiberal. Not only that, but on the SNP's watch, we have seen worthwhile community projects tackling anti-sectarianism being cut. Tonight's vote MSPs should show the Football Act, the red card. That concludes our stage 3 debate on the Offensive Behaviour at Football Repeal Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11069, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Tuesday. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against this motion to say so now. I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 11069. Formally moved. Thank you. No one has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 11069 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Before we come to the decision time, members will be aware that stage 2 of the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity, Scotland Bill, has now been completed, and stage 3 amendments should be lodged by 12 noon on Monday, the 90th of March, 12 noon on Monday for the deadline for the stage 3 amendments. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 10790, in the name of James Kelly, on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications repeal Scotland Bill at stage 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10790, in the name of James Kelly, yes, 62, no, 60, there were no abstentions, the motion is agreed and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications repeal Scotland Bill is passed.