 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 2231, in the name of Douglas Ross on justice. Quick time for people to get into position. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons? We are already short of time for this debate, so can I please impress upon members that brevity will be much appreciated? I call on Douglas Ross to speak to and move the motion. I refer members to my register of members' interests as a football referee officiating at matches for the Scottish FFA, UEFA and FIFA. The critical role for government is to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. Not my words, but the words of the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Roseanna Cunningham, during stage 3 proceedings of the Offensive Behavior and Threatening Communications Bill. I could not agree more with Ms Cunningham, which is why I am pleased to lead today's debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. When the bill was passed, there was cross-party consensus from the Opposition benches that it was deeply flawed anti-sectarian legislation. The Scottish Government had failed in its duty to ensure that the law was indeed fit for purpose. Almost five years later, that consensus remains. However, let me be very clear from the outset. Whether it is in our schools, on our streets or in our football stands, sectarian behaviour should not, must not and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. The sectarian violence slogans and songs sung in and around Scotland's stadiums provoked distress and divisive sniffs, offending and even frightening fans who just want to enjoy our national game. John Mason, I will give way on that point, Mr Mason. I just wonder whether he feels that legislation has no part in this whatsoever, or does he just want better legislation? I absolutely feel that legislation has a point in this, i.e., the breach of the peace. As we will go on to say, legislation that is already in place, not just politicians but others said at the time of the passing of this bill and since the bill has been introduced and enacted, is the legislation that we should be using and we do not need to target one section of our society. Nor do we believe that the hardcore minority of people exhibiting football-related threatening and violent behaviour should get away with it. My party's long-standing opposition to section 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act is not in any way a signal that the Scottish Conservatives do not support eradicating the scourge of sectarianism. Any attempts to suggest otherwise are a gross distortion of our position on this issue. We voted against the 2012 act because, quite simply, it was bad legislation. As my colleague John Lamont reminded the chamber in December 2011 when the bill was railroaded through, bad law is worse than no law at all. That is not just our view, Deputy Presiding Officer. That is the view of much of the legal profession. It is well documented that, in 2013, one senior judge complained that the complex catch-all and badly defined provisions of the act were horribly drafted and infamously added that somehow the word mince comes to mind. Many sheriffs have been emphatically critical of the act, raising concerns about section 1's clarity and the human rights implications, as well as the quality of evidence and cases and the meaning of offensive behaviours. Over the course of the bill's rushed parliamentary passage, the Scottish Conservatives consistently argued that sufficient laws were already in place to deal with the behaviour that the draft legislation sought to address. Again, that is not just our view. That was the assessment at the time and continues to be the assessment of the Law Society of Scotland's criminal law committee, which concluded at the time that the committee is of the view that the offence under section 1 does not improve the common law breach of the peace or section 38 of the Criminal Justice Licensing Scotland Act 2010. The First Minister and members on the SNP benches continually tell us that they are a listening Government, so what is it that they are not hearing from opposition politicians, football fans and the legal profession? The response has been clear and the way ahead for the Government is straightforward. To put this through when you are a majority is bad enough. To ignore the outcry following the implementation and to cover your eyes and ears pretending that nothing is wrong is lamentable and is a failure of the Government's duty to Scotland. The SNP amendment today mentions public opinion being supportive of the legislation. It quotes a Scottish Government commission poll saying that 80 per cent of those surveyed supported the act. It should also be noted that the survey was held with just over 1,000 people. Of these 52 per cent of these 52 per cent said that they were not very interested or not at all interested in football. The Government failed to recognise the significant efforts that James Kelly has gone to with his private member's bill. Knowing that there is cross-party support on the opposition benches to repeal the law, he launched a consultation on his proposed bill. With over 3,000 respondents, more than 70 per cent were in favour of repealing the offensive behaviour at football section and over 60 per cent to repeal the threatening communication section. That is clear evidence where the public are asked for their views, what it is that they want the Government and this Parliament to do, they have been clear. However, we should be surprised that the Opposition to the Act given its track record so far. In the inaugural year of the act's operation, the Scottish Government's first set of statistics reported that 259 people were charged under the new legislation. At the same time, the number of people charged with a comparable breach of the peace offences fell by 231, suggesting that prosecutors had simply replaced one offence with another and vindicating the law society's assessment. The number of successful prosecutions has also been variable, ranging from 68 per cent in 2012-13 to 52 per cent in 2014-15. Even the Scottish Government has conceded that the 79 convictions in 2015-16 under section 1 of the act is, and I quote, very small compared to the 15,000 or so breach of the peace convictions secured in the same period. The Scottish Government also does not seem to know how to measure the act's impact. Former Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, praised the decrease in charges one year as evidence that the legislation was working effectively. In the very next year, the cabinet secretary highlighted that a 49 per cent increase in the charges as evidence continues to be an important tool. Such double standards only serve to shed further light on the SNP's confusion over the operation and application of the act. It's an act that the SNP will defend to the hilt, blinker to its feelings and ignorant to the calls of its critics. They're behaving like a football club who's used all their subs but would rather leave an injured player in the pitch instead of removing him for the benefit of their team. There are occasions when remedying behaviour through changes in criminal law is appropriate, but on this occasion the view of legal practitioners is that there were already adequate laws in place. Those can and should be used to prosecute offensive behaviour rather than vilifying football and its hundreds and thousands of fans. The 2015 Moral Report emphasises that the impact of sectarianism varies from community to community, and that it is not a one-size-fits-all issue. We need an enduring change in our cultures and our attitudes, and that happens in our homes, in our classrooms and in our communities. It's facilitated by the work of charities and third sector organisations such as Nill by Mouth, and we need to see and support more community-led activity like this. It's time that this flawed act was repealed. Not only does it unfairly target those civilised law-abiding fans who simply want to enjoy Scotland's beautiful game, since it was introduced, it has simply served to create confusion rather than clarity. The SNP always brings out that mantra of what would you do if you want to repeal the act, to use well to answer Mr Dornan, to use a footballing analogy. This act doesn't need a substitution, it needs a full-time whistle blown on it, and that's exactly what we intend to do here today. It is not just the Government's responsibility to ensure that the law is fit for purpose, it is this Parliament's responsibility. Too many times, the SNP has steamrolled over the legitimate concerns of opposition parties who speak in this chamber for their constituents and Scotland stakeholders. Today, I sincerely hope that we can begin to reverse act trend. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Annabelle Ewing to speak to her and move amendment 2231.1 up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Football is indeed Scotland's beautiful game and it is part of our culture. Supporters are passionate in their backing of their team, but there is a darker side to Scottish football, a part of the game that has been prevalent for decades and which many seem to have accepted as the status quo. Often excused as just banter or letting off steam, we appeared to have accepted that abuse, threats and violence were part and parcel of attending football matches in Scotland, but there is absolutely no place in football for those who let their passion become violent or their pride become hateful. This is how we used to excuse racism and sexism, but it does cause offence and harm and undermines people's dignity and respect. The immediate backdrop to the legislation, as many members in the chamber will be aware, concerned events in 2011, including when Celtic and Rangers played in a Scottish Cup semi-final replay and around that time, we had prominent public figures, including the former Celtic manager Neil Lennon receiving bullets and viable explosive devices through the post because of their football allegiance. The Scottish Government recognises that the majority of football fans are well behaved and simply want to support their team, but there is a stubborn minority who still believe that it is acceptable to be abusive, offensive and violent at football. The 2012 act was introduced to rid Scottish football of this abusive behaviour to differentiate between supporting your team and descending into threatening and abusive targeting of the opposition. Nobody is suggesting that there can't be banter between rival fans, but when that spills into being racist, homophobic, sexist or sectarian, it is unacceptable. Indeed, evidence tells us that the majority of fans and people in Scotland's communities find such behaviour unacceptable. I would refer the chamber again to the independent comprehensive view of pole, which found that 80 per cent of respondents directly supported the act and 76 per cent of football fans supported the act. Too often, we have read about our witness behaviour at football matches, which would not be acceptable anywhere else in society. Some have argued that the act unfairly targets football supporters and asked, for example, why does it not apply to rugby or to other sports? The simple answer is that there is not the same problem at these events. Ten days ago, an 11-year-old boy had to be taken to hospital after being struck on the head by a glass bottle and required seven stitches. That happened in and around a football match, not another sport. I think that it is important that the chamber reflects on that. I wish to make some progress. The minister doesn't wish to take either intervention, please sit down. These are not new problems. Scottish football needs to recognise that society does not agree that historic tribalism is a justification for abusive behaviour. Football simply cannot wash its hands here. Football is an integral part of our society and it does need to be part of the solution. We should be promoting the game in Scotland and indeed trying to encourage more people to go to football games, especially the next generation of fans, the ones that will be the lifeblood of the game going forward. Instead, we here of families put off going because they do not want to expose their children to the inappropriate behaviour of the hardcore minority who sour the atmosphere and make it unwelcoming for the majority. I would like to turn to a few of the misconceptions about the act that we keep hearing about. People have suggested that it was not needed because existing legislation was sufficient, but we saw in the independent academic evaluation of the act that it brought a new clarity to the law. Indeed, I would refer members most recently to the Crown Office submission to Mr Kelly's consultation just a few weeks ago. I would refer the members to the Crown Office's submission to the consultation. Just a few weeks ago, when we saw the Crown Office directly responding to that point, we made the point directly that the act was dealing with offending behaviour that it might not have been able to secure a conviction for using existing legislation. I am afraid that I want to make progress. Another misconception is that the act is in effective legislation that is demonstrated by apparently a lack of prosecution. Although that is perhaps not the normal approach as to how we measure success of criminal law and policy, I would point out in any event that statistics clearly demonstrate that the prosecution rate for the act is comparable to other prosecution rates. The latest information covers 2014-15 and shows that proceedings have been concluded thus far in 90 cases under section 1 of the act. 76 people were convicted, which is an 84 per cent conviction rate. Comparable conviction rates for other offences in the same year show similar conviction rates for breach of the peace at 84 per cent and common assault at 75 per cent. It has also been claimed—I wish to make progress—that the legislation breaches human rights legislation, but Lord Carlaway, the then-Lord Justice Clark and now-Lord President rejected an appeal in February 2015 that the act was not sufficiently clear, the appeal court took the opposite view and also took the view that the act did not infringe ECHR article 7 rights. That is the appeal court in Scotland. The principles and reasons behind the legislation are robust, and it is important to point out that the legislation is part of a broader approach to tackling issues such as sectarianism. We have, as a Government, invested and have been proud to invest some £12.5 million over the past four years, taking us to March next year. Investment in many important community-based education projects, one of which I had the pleasure to visit this morning at Pullman prison, the IC Scotland project. We have been working to ensure that the recommendations— The minister is closing. I will take an intervention from Mr Kelly. Will the minister explain if the Government is fully committed to anti-sectarian initiatives and why the budget has been cut in the last year by £2 million? Unquested edited amount of money is £12.5 million over the last four years, taking us to next year. More than any other Government in Scotland. I would also say to Mr Kelly that, in terms of a quote that he made this week to, I believe that it was a daily record, it was not sensible to simply look in terms of tackling sectarianism at what happens in 90 minutes in Scotland on a Saturday. What I would say to Mr Kelly is that it is not sensible to look at the issue of sectarianism without also considering what happens in 90 minutes on a Saturday in Scotland. Clare Baker, up to five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. Labour's position on the offensive behaviour at the Football and Threatening Communications Act is established. We are against this unworkable, poorly drafted act, legislation that has soured relationships focused on a very specific group of people and failed to address and tackle the issue of sectarianism, bigotry and offensive behaviour. That is why it was in our manifesto to repeal the act, that is why my colleague James Kelly is bringing forward a member's bill to do just that, and that is why today we will be supporting the motion before us. Let me be clear, Scottish Labour does not condone any threatening, abusive, sectarian, bigoted or violent behaviour at football in our schools, our communities, our homes, our online. I know that this is a position that in the chamber we can all unite on. We need a strategy that works. Unfortunately, the act does not. There are concerns about how the legislation was drafted, concerns that the Government has so far failed to fully and satisfactorily answer. From the subjectivity of what offensive behaviour is to the way in which it criminalises certain behaviours only in a football setting, as well as the consequences of the legislation with regard to freedom of speech and human rights, we have an act that, according to Lady Peyton and Lord Brody and Philip from the appeal court, created a criminal offence with an extremely long reach, an act where you can be charged if you are on a journey to a football match, even if that person has no intention of actually attending the match. The law allows officers within Police Scotland to use discretion when it comes to deeming what is offensive. Officers now have to become judge and jury for when, as put by one sheriff, bad sentiment becomes hatred. That has led to claims of misapplication and misuse. We have a situation in which many people have been arrested without there being an identifiable victim and many charges failing to lead to convictions. It is clear that, since the introduction of the legislation, we have seen a deterioration of relationship between fans, fan groups and the police, a relationship that needs to be strong if we are to tackle forms of sectarianism and offensive behaviour. Instead of co-operation and self-policing, we have fans being filmed, followed and searched. According to Fans Against Criminalisation, they say that the whole atmosphere at football has become one of antagonism, not between opposing fan groups but between fans and the police. We now have young fans growing up in a culture of distrust and injustice with our police force. There is not a healthy relationship to be fostering in a modern Scotland and can have a knock-on effect on future justice issues. Football is Scotland's game, yet, when we discuss it in this chamber, we often paint a dark and negative picture of a game and a set of fans whose behaviours have changed dramatically since the 1980s. The Tartan army is renowned and loved the world over and tens of thousands of Celtic fans in Seville during the UEFA Cup final won UEFA's fair play award. Scotland's clubs are the best supported in Europe when attendances are taken on a per capita basis and thousands of fans every weekend travel to games supporting their team and doing their club and country proud. Yes, there are a minority of fans who let the side down, yet having an act that says that all fans must be treated differently from fans of other sports such as rugby, golf and ice hockey is not the answer. Presiding Officer, ahead of this debate, the Government has repeatedly called for alternatives, yet has been pointed out previously that the alternatives are already in place. We have, among others, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Police Public Order and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010. Sectarianism, bigotry, hatred and violence are not new offences. We have common law offences such as breach of the peace, public order offences against the incitement of racial hatred, harassment and religious prejudice and football banning orders among a raft of other charges that can be brought forward against anyone who is quite clearly breaking the law. That was discussed at length during the passage of the bill. Concerns were raised yet went unheeded by this Government who used their then majority to force through the legislation, yet nothing since the passage of the act has eased those concerns. The best laws and legislation are simple, clear and understood not just by the courts and the police but by the public too. Yet what we have is an act that is at best confusing or, in the words of Sheriff Richard Davidson, horribly drafted. I think that that critique is simple, clear and understood. Repeal of the act would include section 6. The Law Society suggests that this section adds to the complexity of prosecuting this offence and is an area that could benefit from some clarity. I am confident that repeal would not restrict the ability to prosecute. What we are seeing today is Parliament uniting against this unworkable bill. We have an opportunity today to listen to courts, lawyers, academics and fans. We have the chance to repair relationships between fans and the police. This is not a time for arrogance or stubbornness and it is time for the Scottish Government to accept the need to repeal the act. I move to the open speeches. I cannot oppress upon you just how tight time is in this very short debate, so it is generally four minutes, which must include interventions. Oliver Mundell to be followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It would be easy to think that today's debate is about tackling the blight of sectarianism, which despite significant progress still plagues modern Scotland. However, those arguments in this context are nothing more than a straw man. As we have now seen in practice, the legislation does nothing to tackle the underlying issues or change behaviour. In fact, the only positive thing to come out of the legislation and credit to the Scottish Government, where credit is due, is that it succeeded in uniting football fans across the divide in a common cause. In albeit a narrow context, it has shown that people can put their traditional rivalries aside in the interests of the game, and so too it has brought together opposition parties in this chamber. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on that fact. The legislation is both tokenism at its worst and perhaps more worryingly than that is just very, very poor legislation that muddies the waters rather than delivering on any tangible policy aims. Surely the warning signs are clear for all to see with judges, civil rights groups, football fans and clubs all highlighting continued concerns. Indeed, the law society put it very diplomatically when they said that we believe that the policy intention as an objective of the 2012 act to address the serious issues of offensive behaviour at football matches and threatening communications is entirely laudable. However, we remain concerned about a number of aspects of the act that we expressed at the bill stage in 2011. Is not that just it? The Scottish Government rushed through this act, railroading it through this Parliament, without addressing any of the legitimate concerns and criticisms that were levelled. Now we find ourselves exactly where we were when we started with legislation that is not fit for purpose and is riddled with exactly the same problems that were predicted back in 2011. However, drafting in legal considerations aside, for me personally, perhaps the most worrying and undesirable consequence of this act is the fact that it brings so many young males into the criminal justice system for the first time. Indeed, of the 287 charges that were made in relation to the act in 2015-16, some 98 per cent of those involved were male. Out of those, very sadly, almost half were 20 years of age or under and a further 29 per cent were aged between 21 and 30. That tells a very sad story that would seem to point to a more worrying trend that continues to exist outside of football. That is the point that those problems exist both inside football and outside, which is why it is wrong to focus our political efforts in this way. What is more, the act provides no solutions whatsoever. By implication, it means that rather than focusing our financial efforts and political efforts on addressing offending behaviour, we simply seek to label the problem and make an example of a small number of individuals. As YouthLink Scotland rightly highlighted in its most recent consultation response on the subject, we must be mindful that having a criminal record will impact on a young person's attainment and employment prospects, and that seems to fly in the face of the Scottish Government's own priorities when it comes to justice. After almost a decade in Government, is not it time for the SNP to recognise that sometimes gesture politics is not without consequences? It is time for them to think again to listen to legitimate criticisms and to call time on the dog's dinner that is the legislation. Rona Mackay, followed by James Kelly. I would like to highlight today the meaning of the word justice. Its dictionary definition is a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people, fairness, equity and egalitarianism. I believe that those values are precisely what the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act promotes. It sends out a clear message that we will not permit discrimination, violence, sectarianism, prejudice or hate crime in Scotland. I think that we should clear up a few myths about this act. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is working and is reducing sectarianism at football. There has been an increase of 49 per cent of people charged with offensive behaviour in 2015-16 from the previous year. That is 49 per cent less abusive behaviour in language on our football terraces and streets. The fact is that the act is supported by the majority of the public, around 80 per cent, who just want to enjoy the game of football without having to experience the bile and hate from a tiny minority of fans. It is, of course, also supported in the main by football clubs across Scotland. However, the act is not confined to football and offences is also committed if the material is intended to stir up religiously motivated hatred and cannot be reduced to sectarianism or football in isolation as the problem goes way beyond the football grounds. It is also designed to address online communications and hate crime. Of course, we will consider ways to improve the application of the act, and we are happy to do so. However, getting rid of this additional useful tool that strengthens existing legislation for police and prosecutors by repealing it is not a priority for this Government. The Crown Office has said that it would leave a gap in legislation and that we will be the only part of the UK that does not have that. Repealing it would be an entirely retrograde step. What kind of message would that send out to the next generation? When my son was a football mad six-year-old and wanted a football talk, we bought him a party thistle talk so that he wouldn't be identified with either side of the old firm. How do you explain sectarianism to a young child? Quite simply, you can't and you shouldn't have to. It has been the curse of the west of Scotland and any steps that our Government takes to put a stop to it should be welcomed. The Conservative motion put forward by Douglas Ross asking for the repeal of the act is, I believe, regressive and negative. His motion rightly states that sectarian behaviour and hate crime are a blight in society in Scotland, but Douglas Ross's party, like Labour, has not come up with a single solution to solve the problem. What is the alternative? Breach of the peace is simply not strong enough. Incidentally, Labour and the Tories both supported the act wholeheartedly in 2011. I say to those who oppose the act that we are proud that rather than paying lip service to the problem, the SNB Government is prepared to tackle it head-on and rid Scotland of the poison that has been a blight in our nation for far too long. James Kelly, followed by John Finnie. Let's be clear that the Football Act has been a failure. It was imposed on Parliament against the will of all the opposition parties. It unfairly targets football fans. It causes friction between police and supporters. It has been ineffective in tackling sectarianism. That is why, in the consultation on my private member's bill, 70 per cent of returns of the more than 3,000 people who have returned, 70 per cent support repeal of sections 1 to 5 and 62 per cent support repeal of sections 69. It is also the case that the Opposition parties, as they did at stage 3 in 2011, are unanimously opposed to the legislation continuing. Rather than hectoring and lecturing from the SNP benches, it is time that the SNP started to listen. I think that the repeal of this act is very important. First of all, because it causes a lot of confusion and in the justice system what you need is legal certainty. When you look at some of the case law, one example, a whole morning taken up in a share of court with legal debate about whether a young man who had his mouth covered with a scarf, whether the jaw movements beneath the scarf constituted an offensive song, which might cause public disorder. It really is ridiculous. On young men, Oliver Mundell rightly pointed out that on the recent tranche of cases brought forward, nearly half of them are young men under 20, many of whom brought into the criminal justice system for the first time. I cannot believe for a minute having listened to many justice debates and sincere speeches from Michael Matheson. I cannot believe for a minute that that is a policy outcome that this Government wanted or wants to continue with. I think that you also have to look at the cost. Two million pounds spent on a unit that films football supporters in and outside of football grounds, not to mention the cost of the overzealous pursuit of these cases. We have seen the return in recent times of numerous dawn raids where police officers will sit outside offenders' houses in shifts in order to carry out an arrest. Surely the amount of money that we are investing in would be better placed investing in better ideas in the public services. On tackle and sectarianism, I believe that the Scottish Government has got the approach wrong in making the Offensive Behaviour Football Act, its flagship policy, because a lot of the hate crimes are carried out away from the football. It does not appear to me that that has been grasped by the ministerial team. I believe that we can do better as a Parliament. Surely in 21st century Scotland we should not be having a law that targets one section of sport fans. Surely in a modern progressive country we should not be filming football fans going in and out of the grounds. Surely we can do better than a policy that criminalises young people under the age of 20. I think that there is an opportunity here for the SNP to reach out, to build a consensus with other parties and groups of Scotland, and it should start with the repeal of this act. John Finnie, followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you very much indeed. The Scottish Green Party manifesto position was to support the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour Football Act, and that is entirely consistent with objections raised at the outset by Patrick Harway. Indeed, throughout the passage of the bill, the Scottish Green Party MSP has repeatedly made it clear that there may be a case for incitement to hatred legislation in Scots law, but that this should be developed with careful consideration, and people have talked about the haste of the legislation—a significant level of consensus and there wasn't consensus. It must treat everyone equally before the law, and it's felt that this targets football supporters. Various references have been made to judicial comment, the High Court of Appeal. In one particular case, it was remarked by the judge there in an acting section when the Parliament created a criminal offence with extremely long reach, and indeed it may be felt it overstretched itself. That's a view of many of the sheriffs, and we've heard some comments there. I'd like to comment on a representation, and I'm sure, like many others, I had. It's someone who said, I'm no expert in intersectionality, but an approach to religious or sexual discrimination that targets a section of the population doesn't seem to fit. The offence of section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010 has faced none of the criticism, because I'd suggest that it applies across the board. What I do hear is that there is a consensus that we need to tackle sectarianism. Constituents have often written to both of us to say that the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2010 accept that it probably doesn't deal with the numerous different nuances of behaviour at matches, but to repeal it would be to send a very dangerous message out to offending groups. I know that that constituent who wrote to me also wrote to you. John Finnie? Yes, indeed, and I got a very courteous reply outlining the Scottish Green Party's position on the rationale for it this morning. Similarly, another representation I had related to unpicking the complex social histories and fabric that have resulted in the sectarian problems that we have today is essential. They say that the final report from the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland is the best basis that we have for a strategy that will deliver on that complex task. The Marrow report did talk about the need to challenge other acceptance of low-level sectarianism to work across political parties, and I hope that that will be the case. It is called for leadership from churches, community organisations, local authorities and football clubs, and the need for funding of grass-root activity. Specifically on football, the Marrow report talked that it was keen to portray the reality that sectarianism is not rife across football. Rather, it is strong in pockets and extends into the wider society. It is wrong to conflate the two issues. There is no way of addressing the issue within football without addressing the wider issue. Central to how we go about that is that it can only be successfully taken forward. It was done in a consistent long-term way, and that can only be shared if there is a shared political vision for this work. There never was a shared political vision about this particular piece of legislation, and the Scottish Parliament said that it is best when it is united. We have seen that in relation to some important issues, and I hope that we will see that in the unity around the condemnation of sectarianism. As I said, never united in this legislation, there is no place for sectarianism Scotland. The Scottish Green Party believed that the football act unnecessarily restricts freedom of expression, and that most effective is not being the most effective way of addressing those concerns. Green MSPs voted against the legislation in 2011. Again, stress there may be a case for incitement to hatred legislation in Scots law if we can get consensus around that. I am going to conclude, Presiding Officer, by Patrick Harvie's final words on the stage 3 debate, when he talked about the mistakes of the ball. He said that MSPs would, and I quote, need to come back to correct in good time. This is good time to correct, correction by repeal. Liam McArthur, followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start with thanking Douglas Ross for bringing this debate, but I also pay tribute to James Kelly for his diligence in keeping a spotlight on the deficiencies of the 2012 act and for his own bill to repeal this ill-thought through legislation. At the very outset, like others, let me be absolutely clear. I utterly condemn sectarian language, acts and behaviour that are still too prevalent and pervasive in our society. I will happily work my socks off with any party, any group, any individual in a bid to rid our country of this stain. However, I am not interested in quick fixes, headline-grabbing stunts or shows of legislative muscle that are counterproductive, which damage the very relations that we will need to depend on for a long-term solution. I say that in part in response to, I thought, insultingly patronising comments attributed to a Scottish Government spokeswoman earlier this week. She said that critics of the act seem to think that our only option is to accept this contempt for fans and players. If that is the view of the minister, it does her no credit. For me, it has unpleasant echoes of the former justice secretary's views of those opposing the SNP's Government's plans to abolish corroboration, which somehow sympathises our apologists for domestic violence and sexual assault. No, thank you. I do not believe that the over 70 per cent of respondents to the consultation on James Kelly's bills are apologists for sectarianism any more than any member in this chamber. They are, I believe, groups and individuals reflecting the widely held view that this act was flawed from the start, a view borne out by what has happened since. It was introduced, I believe, by a justice secretary and a majority SNP Government showing scant respect or regard for this Parliament, for civil liberties or for the complexities of the problem that they sought to address. A knee-jet reaction in response to reprehensible scenes at an old firm game and accusations that the then First Minister and his Government had taken their eye off the ball and failed to carry forward the work on sectarianism previously led by Jack McConnell. I dare say that we will now be offered an inquiry to look into how the act is performing, but the time for that, I have to say, would have been prior to legislating in the first place. Emergency legislation is sometimes necessary, but the use in this instance was not justified and was based on no compelling evidence that the tools at the disposal of the police, the courts and our judicial system, were at the time inadequate. No wonder that it was described as mints. It was singled out one sport and left open what constitutes offensive behaviour to the widest possible interpretation. Considering how quick the SNP colleagues can be when it suits them to offend, such an elastic definition of offensiveness is surely not tenable. What is the solution? Nail by mouth and others call for it to be dealt with holistically, where action does not stop at criminalising the behaviour of one section of society in one particular circumstance. As John Finnie said, the advisory group on tackling sectarianism has already established the foundations for change through initiatives that focus on prevention, building trust and understanding. Recognising that councils, churches, football clubs, schools, media, community organisations and others are all key in delivering grass-roots solutions. They have set out a series of recommendations. None of those, I accept, are as easily packaged and sold as a single piece of newly minted statute. However, if we are truly to tackle this scar on our society, we must recognise that it will require patient time-consuming intensive work by many people and organisations over a sustained period. Deputy Presiding Officer, we need to show sectarianism the red card, but that can be done more effectively by sending this ill-conceived act for an early bath. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is an unfortunate relic of the previous parliamentary term, an act on which proper scrutiny was never allowed. Good law that works must take into account a range of different views, and particularly those from people who are actually affected by and involved in carrying out the legislation. The fundamental problem with this act pointed out well in advance of it becoming law was its lack of clarity. The concept of offence to a notional person rather than an actual individual who is affected by the crime was always bound to be problematic. It has effectively placed the police and the courts in the difficult position, not just of identifying but also defining the alleged culprit. The pre-existing law on breach of the peace is, by comparison, relatively clear, and that is saying something. The law in practice, predictably, as has already been referred to, has been conflicting decisions by respected judges in very similar cases. Different judgments have been handed down for the singing of the same song in the same year. The then Lord Justice Clarke, now the Lord President, the highest judge in Scotland, Lord Carlaway, said in a case, a month after the one referred to, the case of Donnelly and Walsh against the Procurator Fiscal Edinburgh in March last year, that there is no blanket ban on singing sectarian songs and the appellants are at liberty to indulge the desire to do so at many alternative venues. No, I will not, thank you. The law has, unsurprisingly, been branded as capricious, unfair, unnecessary and unworkable by Brian McConaughey QC, former chair of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association. It is not just astonishing to me, but also to my constituents in Edinburgh and Lothian. For football supporters visiting Tyncastle, Easter Road or Meadowbank stadium to maybe be treated differently to those watching rugby matches at Murrayfield stadium, it seems nothing short of ridiculous. The act itself provides a platform for the promotion and creation of social division. That is surely the opposite of its supposed purpose. Critically, as has already been said, the act does not have the support or respect of the fans themselves. Police Scotland needs to have the support and respect of fans to maintain the law and order that the vast majority of football supporters want to see. The job of Police Scotland is difficult enough without being added to by unclear law such as this one. There is, yes, of course, a real issue that requires to be dealt with, sectarianism and its ugly consequences. However, the way to deal with this is through education and removing the circumstances that lie at the root of the problem. A law that fails in so many ways is just not the answer. As Professor Ewan Carman of Edinburgh University rightly said, the legislation does not really address the underlying issues, the deeply held cultural attitude and feelings. It addresses a symptom of sectarianism, the particular problem of sectarian language. Underlying attitudes cannot really be dealt with by criminalising songs. There is no point in having laws for their own sake. We need to deal with the underlying root causes and not just the consequences. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will, for once, listen. James Dornan, to be followed by Kate Forbes. I have to, sadly, and I do mean sadly to say that I will not be able to take any interventions because I have only got four minutes. I have been happy to. There are still incidents of online campaigns and sectarianism in nature, and those are completely unacceptable. This is a job for a Parliament to look at those laws around the internet to see if they are tough enough. I want the authorities to act, get appropriate tools and legislation at their disposal to clamp down in that sort of behaviour. This is a comment from James Kelly on 22 April 2011, coincidentally, just about a week or two weeks before an election, which shows to me that this is nothing to do with trying to improve the legislation and has everything to do with trying to defeat the Government. This is a political stunt by two parties that have been working very, very closely together for quite some time just now. I have heard a number of people say that they cannot understand why football was singled out. I would say that the people that are saying that do not know anything about the situation in the west of Scotland. The one defining picture of sectarianism in Scotland has always been football. That is not where it all comes from, and that is not where it deep down lies. All those things are being dealt with. However, if we are trying to pretend that sectarianism in football has not been ugly brothers for some time, then we are not paying attention, we have had to take on the sectarianism that was at football. We had to take on the antisocial behaviour at football. We had to take on the death threats that managers were getting. I cannot believe that you are keen to get rid of the section 6, because, obviously, there is absolutely nothing to replace that. It is a ridiculous thing. We have been told that what we should do is nothing. You said nothing, James said nothing. You said that we should do nothing. You should let the clubs deal with it, as what James Kelly told me yesterday and what you are saying today. The clubs refuse to do anything. The clubs refuse that the SFA wanted to bring in strict liability. The clubs said no. There were two clubs, fans, supporters fighting and Hamden. The whole world saw it in the Scottish Cup final. Not one club was found guilty of anything. That is the whole point. What we are saying is that there still has work to be done. What you should do is go back to having less legislation, holding people blessed to account. You have to hold the clubs to account. You have to hold people to account. Can members all talk through the chair, please, rather than having private conversations in the chamber? That is what happens at football matches all the time. The clubs will not do anything unless we make sure that there is legislation in place for them. We have to keep the Offensive Behaviour Act. We have to make sure that we have to send out a message that we take seriously. I know that there is nobody in here that is complacent about sectarianism or anything like that. I just say that you say that we are wrong. I honestly believe that the message that you would send out by repealing the act says that you do not think that there is a problem there that still has to be dealt with. I know that that is not your intention, but that is a message that will be allowed and clear to people all across this country. I have to tell you that I know lots of football fans. I have been a football fan for longer and most of you have been alive. Many of the people that I know support this bill because they want to go at your game, they want to enjoy their football, they want to take their children and their grandchildren and they do not want to have to listen to the rubbish that I had to listen to when I was a kid and my sons had to listen to when they were kids. Support the Government, do not support the motion because this is a flawed motion. The last of the open debate speakers is Kate Forbes. I can allow you around two minutes please. The reason that I am supporting the Government's motion today is because the Conservatives have come to this chamber with a motion that rightly condemns sectarian behaviour and hate crime, accusing both of being a blight on society—which I agree—but the motion offers not a single solution. It is a weak opposition that will carp and criticise as they sit in the stands and a strong opposition that gets on the pitch with an actual plan. The appalling seems that the recent Scottish Cup final humiliates this nation and quiet indulgence or passive acceptance of sectarian banter runs as a fault line through Scottish society. None of us I know are resigned to the status quo. One thing that can be said for this Government is that it is not resigned and is not indifferent. Immediately prior to the 2012 act, Opposition parties lined up to ask the Government what it would do to specifically address sectarianism, and we did something. I repeat that question to the Opposition benches again today. What is your viable alternative that would actually solve football-related sectarianism? With this act, we criminalise hateful behaviour that incites public disorder and sent a message that Scotland would not tolerate any form of hate crime, and we will continue—and I think that that is important—to consider ways to improve the application of the act but are yet to hear of anything better to replace it with. Education is, of course, important, but it is not the only answer. Funding is vital, but it will not fully solve the problem. We need legislation. I repeat that question that was asked by Opposition parties over four years ago. What are you going to do when bullets and explosive devices are sent through the post, when banners are displayed with threatening remarks or inflatable dolls are strung up at football matches? What is your alternative to this act when hundreds of police hours are spent investigating crimes after football matches and tens of people are arrested after a cut final? That is the reality in Scotland. There is public support for tackling hate crime, for a strong criminal justice system and for clarity in enforcing legislation. We are committed to that, and that is why the act exists. We can debate and oppose the act if we want, but it is empty rhetoric and gesture politics in Mr Mundell's words if we have no viable alternatives. Mary Fee, please, four minutes. Sectarianism is an intolerable human behaviour that should never be treated with acceptance or ignorance. I thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate to the chamber this afternoon. Their motion reflects the mood of Opposition parties, football fans, academics and the law bodies. We want to tackle sectarianism through education and prevention, working with anti-sectarianism charities, churches, football authorities and fans to develop positive measures to stamp out sectarianism in Scotland. I do not doubt the intentions of the Scottish Government in tackling sectarianism. I believe that they are sincere. However, I, like many others, also believe that the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications Scotland Act 2012 was rushed and is reactionary. There have always been wider problems surrounding football, particularly in Glasgow in the west of Scotland. To adequately tackle sectarianism, we must look at the deeper roots and attitudes of those holding biased and sectarian views—football fan or not. James Kelly has outlined his reasons for holding a consultation to repeal the act. Over 70 per cent of respondents believe that the Scottish Government should listen to their views and join the rest of the chamber to scrap the act and take other measures to tackle bigotry. Prior to the act becoming law in 2012, there were already eight pieces of legislation that tackled hate crime, sectarianism and the behaviour of football fans. The offensive behaviour at football act is illiberal and treats football fans differently than any other sports fan or anyone from any other walk of life. Sectarianism occurs in the workplace, in the school and on the streets. It does not start when a fan walks through the turnstile or end when the full-time whistle blows. Biased and bigoted-based assumptions can be made about something as simple as a person's name. I have been in that position abused because of the connotations that some people have made of my surname. That did not happen at a football game or while watching any sport. That happens throughout society across the whole of Scotland. I believe that the act discriminates against fans. It has damaged the trust between fans and police and it has failed to tackle sectarianism in a proportionate and effective way. Football across the world has a problem with inclusivity on a range of areas, especially in homophobia and racism. Working with national governments, the governing bodies of football, FIFA, UEFA and the national football associations, they must all do more at local and at grass-roots levels to tackle all forms of discrimination. In closing, the views from across the opposition benches are clear. The Scottish Government will have the full support of this chamber if it listens to the fans and goes back to the drawing board, working with a range of stakeholders such as fans, churches, anti-sectarianism groups, clubs, schools and many more and comes up with a more effective way of educating people and understanding and tackling the root causes of sectarianism. I call on Michael Matheson. You have five minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I listen with interest to the contributions that have been made in the course of this debate here this afternoon. Having said that, it is fair to say that there is a level of consensus within the chamber, in particular a consensus that we all need to do everything we can to tackle unacceptable behaviour that takes place in football grounds or outwith football grounds. We all get a collective desire to make sure that we drive out unacceptable behaviour in our society, no matter whether it takes place 90 minutes during a football match or whether it takes place within communities themselves. It is also important to recognise that no-one says that legislation is a panacea in tackling unacceptable behaviour in our football grounds or in our communities in Scotland. There is a variety of measures that need to be taken forward in order to tackle unacceptable behaviour effectively. Education through our schools and through community-based programmes is working in partnership with local communities to make sure that we educate young people about unacceptable behaviour, whether that be sexism, whether it be homophobia, racism or sectarianism, all of which have no place in our society. There is no doubt that our football clubs have an important part to play in tackling unacceptable behaviour that takes place within the environment of their ground. I am in no doubt that there is more that clubs in Scotland can be doing in order to support that particular objective. Equally alongside that—let me make progress here, please—legislation has a part to play in supporting our law enforcement bodies and their prosecutors to be able to effectively deal with unacceptable behaviour in any shape or fashion wherever it takes place. Throughout the course of the debate over the last four years, since the legislation was passed through this Parliament, there have been those who have said that it is a piece of legislation that doesn't work. It should be repealed. It should be removed. Repeatedly, we have always said to opposition parties, what would you do differently? How do you feel the existing legislation could be improved or the deficiencies that are within it could be addressed? One of the things that we have been struck with has been the silence from those opposition parties. What I want to do is pick up on a couple of the points. Let me make progress on this issue. What I want to do is make progress on issues that have been raised in the course of the debate. I was struck by the lack of alternative approaches that have been set out by any of the parties in the chamber here today. I was particularly struck, though, by the contribution that was made by James Kelly when he made reference to the Police Scotland focus group that deals with tackling unacceptable behaviour within football grounds. That group was not set up because of the legislation. That group was set up on the basis of a recommendation from the joint action group on tackling unacceptable behaviour in football. It is there to help to address the issue within football grounds in itself. However, I have also been struck by the nature of the contributions across the chamber. I have tried to focus this whole debate on whether it is purely about football. It is a piece of legislation that deals with unacceptable behaviour within football grounds, but it also deals with issues around threatening communications. Section 6, which is an important part of this piece of legislation, and many of the contributions of Douglas Ross from others have completely ignored that issue. I will give way to Mr Kelly. James Kelly. I am glad that he mentioned the threatening communications section. Does he accept my view that, with only three cases brought forward in the last year, it is quite clear that prosecutors do not see that as a viable way of tackling online abuse? If you have a minute left, Mr Matheson. If you look at legislation on the basis of how often it is used as to whether it is a viable piece of legislation or not, I think that it is a very simplistic approach to deal with this type of issue. However, let us remember why that was put in. It was put into the legislation because we had a football manager receiving bullets through the post. We had two members of the public who could not have presented them off—a Deputy Presiding Officer of the Parliament receiving a viable explosive device through the post, all of which could only have been dealt with on a summary basis in our courts, limiting their pillars to censoring someone to no more than a year. When we put an indictment through this particular piece of legislation, it allows our courts to deal with it much more effectively. Those who want to say that this is just about football have to recognise that when they want to repeal this piece of legislation, they also want to repeal an aspect of this legislation that is essential in dealing with threatening communication. We will be the only part of the UK that has not criminalised threatening communication that has got the purpose of stirring up religious hatred, and that is what the Opposition parties are seeking to do with this motion today and why it should be opposed by this Parliament. Colin Murdoff-Razer, to close this debate. Six minutes please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At the start of the debate, Douglas Ross set out the case against the bill. It is unnecessary, it is unworkable and it is illiberal. I would like to deal with each of those aspects in turn and take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that were made during the debate. First, we believe that the bill is unnecessary. It was introduced as part of the something must be done mentality by the Scottish Government to address what is a legitimate concern about sectarianism in Scottish society, but ignoring the fact, as we have heard throughout this debate from members, that existing laws were there, including common law breach of the peace to address the problem. I can just quote from the law society briefing for this debate where they say, a substantial proportion of the offensive behaviour related to football, which leads to a public disorder, was likely to be caught by the substantive criminal law which existed prior to the 2012 act coming into force, and continues to exist. The law society here is quite clear that the laws were there in place already. I have experienced myself standing on football grounds in the 1980s and seeing the police lift people from around me who were singing what were threatening and offensive songs. One of the individuals in question is now a prominent Scottish lawyer who I will not name in the chamber. For the audience of doubt, it was not Professor Tomkins. We heard from a number of SNP speakers—we heard that from the cabinet secretary, we heard it from Mr Dornham, we heard it from Kate Forbes and Rona Mackay—what would replace that, which completely misses the point of what we on this site have been saying and others have been saying, that the existing laws are there which, if properly enforced with proper resources, can deal with the problem. The minister at the start said that this is covered in her amendment and that we need to send a message. The reason that we have the act is that it sends a message with the unacceptability of sectarian behaviour. I think that there are better ways of sending messages than criminalising hundreds of young men in particular. Oliver Mundell made the case about young men, and there will be young women too who have been criminalised, who have had their life chances adversely affected because they have been criminalised because of that particular act. It is also sour relationships between fans and the police. Mr Dornham accused us of political opportunism for taking this forward as a chance to defeat the Government, but we were entirely consistent in our view. We were opposed to this bill from the start, as indeed we are all the opposition parties. Is it any surprise that we now see an opportunity to repeal what we believe is bad law? The second point, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that this law is unworkable. Claire Baker said that laws need to be clear and easy to understand. The minister said in an opening statement that this had brought clarity to the law. I tried to intervene on her so that she could explain that remark. I would be delighted if she could explain why she thinks that all the people in the legal profession are wrong, the judiciary are wrong, who have criticised this particular law. Tell us why she thinks that the Government is right and that they are all wrong. The member in his characteristic manner is perhaps overregging his case and saying that the whole of the legal profession takes the point of view that he has just expressed. I was quoting from the judgment that I referred to in 2015 in the appeal court. I was quoting from the judgment, including sitting on the bench at Lord Justice Clark at that time, Lord Carlyway. Murdo Fraser? The minister has not responded to the broad criticism that is contained even in today's briefing from the Law Society of Scotland talking about the lack of clarity in this law, backed up by a whole range of experts sitting on the bench who have expressed similar concerns that have been quoted throughout this particular debate. We heard a very interesting and well-informed contribution from John Finnie for the Greens. We said that there might well be a case for a law against inciting hatred, but that needs to be a general law and not one that applied just to football and such an approach was inappropriate. If we are going to address issues of sectarianism, where we all agree that there is a genuine concern, we need to address them across all of society and not just at football. One of the concerns about this act, which the cabinet secretary just referred to, is that it just criminalises those in relationship to football and not to wider Scottish society. The final point that I want to cover is that this act is illiberal. It criminalises those who are causing offence to others. I believe in a society that people should not cause offence to each other. They should be better behaved, but that does not mean that we should make criminals out of those who cause us offence. What the act does is that it launches a new class of victimless crime, as Gordon Lindhurst reminded us, in the Joseph Cairns case. A Celtic fan who attended a match against Ross County in Dingwall and was filmed by police officers singing two Celtic songs, The Role of Honour and the Boys of the Old Brigade, leading to him being prosecuted under the act. However, that was a victimless crime. There was no complaint made to the police by anybody that they were offended by his singing. Nobody was incited to public disorder. He was one of several thousand fans in the ground singing at the same time, and yet he was the only one singled out for attention. As James Kelly said, this is an act that unfairly targets those who are in a football ground or associated with football and do not address sectarian behaviour in other contexts. This is bad law. It has united commentators, football fans, lawyers and the judiciary in opposition. It is unworkable. It creates tensions between football fans and the police. It is unnecessary because it is covered already by existing laws and it is illiberal. For those three reasons, it should be repealed. For that reason, we should all support the motion in Douglas Ross's name. That concludes the debate on justice. We now move on to the next item of business.