Item 4 on the agenda is consideration of many duplicate emails from people who are petitioning us, as they are entitled to, about the 2012 act. I ask members to turn to paper 3. I remind members that we previously considered the issue at our meeting on 18 June. Since then, we have received a number of identical emails about the 2012 act’s operation—a copy is in the papers.
There have been a lot of emails on the issue. That indicates the strength of feeling that there is around it.
I am not going to ask about that.
That is not meant to be amusing.
No. It is relevant.
It is meant to indicate that there is a range of views. Our job as a committee is to accept that there is deep feeling and deep concern about how the legislation has been applied to one group. For that reason, I am very supportive of an early review of the legislation.
I have just asked the clerks whether they have a note of the particular allegations in the other emails that you mentioned. They do not. If you have separate emails with specific instances, apart from the identical emails, it would be useful if you let the clerks have them so that the committee can see them.
It is right to give balance to the Gallowgate policing arrangements, which we have also discussed at length. I told people in my response that I was disappointed that people did not co-operate, as we heard in the report. That may have been overtaken by events. If we have a review, it is important that the people who have called for a review co-operate with anyone who is charged with conducting it.
Specifically—
Yes, I heard you.
Could you forward those particular emails so that other members can see them?
Yes, indeed.
Some of us are talking in ignorance of what others have received. That is the first practical thing.
It is clear that there is a lot of concern about how the legislation is operating in practice and about the initial drafting of it. That concern comes from widespread sources, including some of the judiciary. Sheriff Davidson said that the legislation was “horribly drafted”.
On John Finnie’s point, when the issue first came to the committee it was to do with the kettling in the Gallowgate, although it was pointed out that that was about policing and had nothing to do with the 2012 act. We received further representations on the issue in the form of round-robin emails. I have had about four or five different emails in the past day or so and have found some of the content quite horrible.
But I—
I will let you back in, Margaret, but I will let everybody else have their say first.
I am sympathetic to what John Finnie and Margaret Mitchell have said. I have not had many emails on the legislation. Even if I start to get a small number on it, I will probably not get as many from Dumfries and Galloway as other members have had from elsewhere. However, I think that there are issues about the operational implementation of the 2012 act. I know that police horses came down to protect people at the Queen of the South match, which I think was probably quite appreciated by the fans. However, we would normally not have that sort of resource for policing a match.
It would have to go through the Parliamentary Bureau.
I agree with what John Finnie and Margaret Mitchell have said. There is deep disquiet about the application of the 2012 act and there is a concern that it has a disproportionate impact on a particular group of people. I think that the onus is on the Parliament to revisit the legislation. Members will know that I did not support it, as I thought that it was heavy-handed and dangerous. However, it gives me no satisfaction to say that some of the concerns that I raised are coming to fruition.
I have a point of clarification on what Sandra White said about the Justice Committee’s amendment. My understanding is that it was about setting a maximum period of time by which the review should be carried out, which would not preclude our taking the kind of action that we are considering today to bring forward the review. Is that the case?
I did not read it that way.
That is another point to clarify.
I was not a member of the Justice Committee when it considered the legislation, but I received a lot of emails on it and, subsequent to becoming a member of the committee, I have received many more emails on it. I tend to agree that there is so much ambiguity for the public around the 2012 act. I take on board John Finnie’s point that it appears to pertain to just one football club, but that is not completely accurate and certainly does not reflect what is happening in my constituency. In general, people who go to local football games are concerned because they do not know whether they are doing something right or doing something wrong. I agree totally that we should have an early review of the legislation. I support Margaret Mitchell’s suggestion of setting up an ad hoc committee.
I am just checking the 2012 act, and the review period is two years, so there is no flexibility, in that we have to let two seasons run. The period ends in August 2014. That is a point of clarification.
It says in our papers:
Yes. I just wanted to clarify what the act says, because I had forgotten. If John Pentland has finished, I will bring Roderick Campbell back in.
We are in danger of rushing things. The emails are comparatively recent. There has been no comment from a member of the Scottish Government, and we have not referred the matter to the Government. At the very least, before the committee takes a view, we should invite further comment from the Government, as a first step.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I am not suggesting that we abort the on-going academic study—quite the reverse, the study will inform us. However, we cannot just hide behind the study and say that we must await the outcome. There is a day-to-day issue. We might be talking about only one year, but that is 40 games and 40 experiences for a fan who feels that they are being put down by the act—I stress that I do not feel in any way put down by it, in my experience at various locations throughout Scotland.
I think that the committee is in danger of splitting. We did not come lightly to the decision to review after two years. We knew what the problems were and exactly what the bill was trying to do, and I think that a two-year period was regarded as a useful timescale in which to attempt to deal with what is an extremely long-standing problem in certain areas. The bill was never designed to hit one set of people or another; it is about offensive behaviour at football matches.
First, we need to see the emails that contain specific allegations, such as the camera in the face and that kind of thing—
Convener, I am trying to recall; if that is not what was said—
No, no—
However, there was a perception of intimidation.
Yes, but we have only the round-robin email. Could you send the others to the clerks?
It sounds as if we would be half way towards doing the review if we did that. We know the facts just now. We know the problems. We know—
We do not know. That is the problem, Margaret—
We know the facts, in that there is a perceived problem with the drafting and operation of the legislation. With respect, what you are suggesting would not move us forward. A review committee, taking such evidence and looking at it more fully, would move matters forward.
In fairness, I think that when anyone makes such statements, I like to get a response back so that we can say, for example, “We’re not happy with this response”—
We already have a written response, convener.
But it is from May. Fresh comments have been made and, as John Finnie has suggested—I am not quoting him directly—things seem to be happening out there that throw real dubiety on aspects of policing. I would like to hear from the chief constable, the minister and the Lord Advocate about that. I am not saying that that has to happen a long time from now; we could set a timescale of a couple of weeks for replies. We are not kicking this into the long grass. I simply suggest that we ask the people in question, “What do you have to say about this?”, and then consider the other suggestions. I thought that that was what John Finnie wanted.
That is what I want, because I think that it will inform our decision. I am also pleased that you have set out a timeframe, as it will be important to get a quick turnaround. However, I ask that the clerks get in touch with the collective fan association or whatever the grouping is called because the representations that I have received have come exclusively from Glasgow Celtic supporters.
You have put that on the record, although I have to say that I do not know how we will manage to keep within our timeframe if we do that. To ensure that we do not waste any time, I was hoping to get something drafted today or tomorrow and emailed to members, asking whether they are content for it to be sent to all the parties that have been mentioned.
I take on board John Finnie’s comments and the fact that, if we go down this road, the timescale will be important. However, I, too, have received a couple of emails and think that if we are going to ask questions we should also ask about the figures that those who have sent these emails have received through freedom of information requests and which go completely against the Government’s numbers. We need to get that information.
My position is simply that a statement has been made to the committee and that we should get the Lord Advocate, the minister and the police to respond to it in the first instance. If you want to examine the other stuff, we will need to go down the route of a full inquiry. I suggest that, first of all, we point out to those mentioned what has come to the committee and ask for their response. In a couple of weeks’ time, we can sit down, review the position, say, “We’ve got these replies. Are we or are we not happy with them?”, and then think about the next stage. That seems to me to be a balanced approach to the matter.
I am a little uncomfortable with that because what we have is correspondence from a few people who have been willing to put their heads above the parapet. Given that we do not know the scale of the problem, I would prefer to carry out a proper review that lets us draw out evidence on the matter instead of asking the minister or whoever to respond to one or two emails. They might well close it down.
I am not closing anything down. I am asking for two weeks to be fair to people and to let them respond to the statements. After all, they have not said anything about them. In two weeks’ time, their responses will have come back and there will be no hiding place for ministers, the police or whoever—that is, of course, if they need one. If members are not happy with those responses, we can come back to the issue. I just think that if such statements are made people should have a chance to respond to them.
I understand, convener, that you are trying to find a consensual way forward—
I am.
However, I do not think that we are going to be consensual here. What we have is a recommendation that an ad hoc committee be formed because of the circumstances surrounding this whole issue—
There are two recommendations on the table.
One at a time, please.
I certainly will not support any further delay. I think that, if it is going to come to a vote, we should just have that vote now and move on. John Finnie has rightly said that the police and the minister should be part of the review that we are asking for, and I see no need for any further delay in moving ahead with that recommendation.
I do not really think that it is fair to say that there has been a delay; after all, this is the first time that the issue has come up. I have suggested a two-week timescale, because I think that that is as short as I can make it. A week is a bit too short to get responses from the Lord Advocate and, indeed, the chief constable, who might have to carry out an investigation before he can tell us what he feels about the situation. In fairness, I do not think that two weeks is a long time.
I am with you, convener, but to reassure John Pentland I should say that I do not want anything to be delayed unduly. I do not know the practicalities of having an ad hoc committee—whether that would be robust enough and so on—but this committee’s workload is certainly very challenging. It might seem more appropriate for this committee—or, indeed, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing—to consider the matter but that might be difficult, given the legislation that is coming our way.
The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing could not do it—it would not be part of its remit.
I beg your pardon, then, convener.
In any case, it would be quite interesting to see the replies from the Lord Advocate and the rest. Because those responses would be in the public domain, the parties complaining about the legislation would have the opportunity to read what has been said, take that on and come back. I just feel that we should be striking that kind of balance.
It was only on 18 June that we said that we would pass any comments that we received on to the police for comment in the first place. To rush ahead with a decision to set up some kind of review without even asking the police simply contradicts what we said in June.
I do not want us to divide over this; after all, it is a serious matter if legislation—whatever it is—is being wrongfully applied. I simply think that if an issue is raised with the committee it is only appropriate for others to have a right of reply—if I can call it that—before we do anything further. I am not closing this down by any means. Committee members will be able to see the terms of the letters that will be put out, which will refer to some of the other correspondence and allegations that have just come in and which I might not have seen. We will put those allegations and statements to the people in question and say that we require a response by a fortnight from today—whatever date that is—to allow the committee to consider and review the matter. We will also let them know that we are considering certain options—of course, that is already on the record—and that we require them to respond to inform where the committee will take the matter next. That will put everyone involved on notice.
If the person who suggested an early review is quite happy to wait for those responses, we will support that approach.
I would be very grateful if you could, because I do not want us to be scrapping over the issue; I want us to do justice to it.
As long as we make a commitment to take a decision in two weeks’ time and that if someone has not got back to us—
Usually, the letters that go out are just run-of-the-mill things but because members have been gracious enough to reach a view on the matter we will put a letter round before the close of business today and ask whether they are satisfied with it. I think that the correspondence to the minister, the chief constable and the Lord Advocate will be in the same terms.
Previous
Commission on Women Offenders