Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012
Item 3 is consideration of correspondence that the committee has received regarding the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 and the policing of protests. Members will recall that, at the committee’s meeting on 23 April, we agreed that we would write to a number of organisations about the function of the act and the policing of protests.
I refer members to paper 2, and seek comments on the correspondence and on whether we want to take any further steps at this stage.
I note the content of paper 2. From my assessment of the committee’s experience of the matter, it appears that the contents are myopic in the extreme. There is none of the evidence in there that we have heard in the past six months—for example, from solicitors who are concerned about people being routinely stopped at airports when they are going on family holidays because they have been identified as supporters.
Another group of solicitors has indicated that there is no doubt supporters are routinely subject to surveillance, and there are issues with the application of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 in that regard. We are all aware of the shrieval comments, which even included a summary assessment of the legislation as “mince”.
When we took evidence before the bill was enacted, we received a promise from the police that the new legislation would put an end to legal challenges arising from the common-law approach in relation to breach of the peace, but there are still challenges every month.
The Lord Advocate quite properly assesses the legislation as working very well, and I have no doubt that, administratively, with regard to managing cases and reporting prosecutions and convictions, it all adds up. However, there is no indication of the social consequences or implications arising from the enforcement processes that have been applied.
Finally, on the success rate in relation to the application of the legislation, analysis elsewhere indicates that nearly three-quarters of the complainers under the legislation are police officers; one would therefore expect a higher level of successful prosecution.
I think that, taken together with the issues that have been raised by various supporters groups, there is still real cause for concern, and we would do well to review the enforcement and other processes connected with the 2012 act sooner rather than later, in the interests of our communities and of involving those who feel the rough edge of the legislation.
I agree with much of what Graeme Pearson said, but not all of it. We do not need to be fazed by legal challenges—the minute you have legislation there will be challenges to it; that is just part of the process.
I found the correspondence illuminating in many respects. The Lord Advocate’s correspondence was factual—statistical information with some anecdotal evidence beside it, which I found interesting—and I suggest that the group of supporters who have approached me and other members do not seem to predominate among those affected by the legislation. That said, I continue to hear the same concerns that Graeme Pearson hears, about people being stopped at airports and fairly low-level issues that do not on the surface appear to merit that level of intervention.
What is the source of the information about people being stopped at airports? I am for facts and evidence, and I would like to know where we can get them.
Paul Kavanagh from Gildeas is the person who sourced the information about people being routinely stopped at airports, and Bill McCluskey was the solicitor who raised the point that there is no doubt solicitors are routinely subject to surveillance.
Which firm is that?
Bill McCluskey’s? I have no idea.
I want us to be able to follow it up.
We can find out.
I found the response from Chief Constable House compelling. It laid out the assertions and the sources for them, showing that, by and large, they were not backed up. However, although I found it interesting, I understood our committee’s interest to be broader than the incident at the Gallowgate, and Mr House’s response simply focuses on that.
The concern that has been raised with me is that there is vigorous enforcement, with challenges, particularly to young men both around and within Celtic park, regarding items of clothing and badges that they may be wearing. That is what I was concerned about when I spoke about the matter previously. Legislation that seems to impact disproportionately on one group, and is viewed as such, is the issue that needs to be addressed. Would the committee agree to write to Mr House, thanking him for the specific response about the Gallowgate, but asking him about the general issue of the legislation’s application, particularly at Glasgow Celtic’s football ground?
We took the view that the Gallowgate incident was an operational matter for the police; we are looking at the legislation rather than focusing particularly on that incident.
I agree with Graeme Pearson, and I will add some figures to back up what he said. The annual conviction rate for the new offences under the 2012 act is 68 per cent, compared with the overall conviction rate for all crimes of 85 per cent. The key point is that the conviction rate for breaches of the peace is 86 per cent, so the act has brought in an offence with a much lower conviction rate in comparison with what would have happened under the old offence.
It is also important to record the fact that the statistics show that 259 people have been charged under section 1 of the act, and only 20 have been charged under section 6. I just wanted to reinforce Graeme Pearson’s point with those figures.
The only letters that I have received are similar to those received by other MSPs, and they are to do with Green Brigade complaints. Graeme Pearson has told us about issues that have been raised by two gentlemen who have never written to me—I do not know whether they have written to committee members or any other MSPs. John Finnie has raised certain issues about the wearing of garments outside a certain football ground.
I am not going to read out the letter that Steve House has sent in answer to the questions that we asked. He has headed the letter “Green Brigade complaints” so he has assumed that that is the one issue that kick-started—if you will pardon the pun—requests for us to look at the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. I note the replies from Frank Mulholland, Steve House and the minister. We all know that the legislation is due to be reviewed, so I suggest that we just stick with it as passed. I do not think we should be considering holding an investigation into it so soon.
I want to stress some of the figures that John Lamont quoted, which came from “Charges reported under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act (2012) in 2012-13”. There were 268 charges of offensive behaviour. Of those who were charged, 99 per cent were male, 73.5 per cent were under the age of 30, and 27.6 per cent were under the influence of alcohol. There are other issues to consider, such as the link between alcohol and offensive behaviour or violence at football. This is a sad issue for me because I come from Glasgow and represent a Glasgow constituency, and 42.2 per cent of the offences took place in Glasgow around certain football matches—I am not going to say exactly which fixtures.
The legislation was introduced for a purpose and I think that it is working. We should look at it but not this soon. We should note that the minister has said that we will consider the legislation in two years, once it has bedded in, and I would stick with that. I do not want an investigation so soon after the act was passed.
It is a pity that members do not have in front of them a copy of my letter on the committee’s behalf to the chief constable. If members look at page 8 of paper 2, they will see that the chief constable refers to our correspondence
“outlining”
our
“concerns about the policing of the Green Brigade”.
In fairness, we asked for that. It might be useful if members had a copy of such letters.
Issues have been raised that I am not aware of. I am not disputing them but we should find out about them. Graeme Pearson has raised allegations about police stopping people at airports and solicitors being targeted. If members give us the appropriate contact details, we can follow those issues up so that we are all informed about them. That would be appropriate; otherwise, we just have what members are telling us—although I am not, by any means, disputing that.
First, I apologise to Mr House if that is what his letter said. However, I understood that we had asked the Lord Advocate a broader question. His reply was certainly comprehensive and very informative but, nonetheless, I seek to hear more about the issues.
Anyone who knows me knows that my allegiance is not with this club, but people have talked to me about the legislation. I do not know whether there is any basis to the comment that people have been stopped at airports. If someone has broken the law—if he has committed an arrestable offence—and he is known to be at an airport, whether coming or going, I will be delighted if the police stop him. However, this is more about the perception that there is targeting. I certainly know nothing about the surveillance of solicitors—[Interruption.]
I will let Graeme Pearson in in a minute.
Last Thursday night I spoke to a young man—I do not know his name—at a meeting in Edinburgh. I have no cause to believe that what he said was said in anything other than good faith. The fact that there are examples shows that we have something to address.
12:00
The problem is not who the people are; the problem is that we must have the information before us. The discussion that we are having is on the record, so anyone who thinks that the legislation is being misapplied or disapplied can say so. If anyone has any details of or contacts for the people who are making such allegations they should pass those on, as it is appropriate that we ask those people to advise the committee so that we can put their allegations to the appropriate sources. I cannot do that on the basis of hearsay.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking for anything other than clarification from the chief constable as to whether the format that is applied to the policing of the Celtic ground is different from that which is applied elsewhere in Scotland. That is important. Perhaps there is an historical dimension to Strathclyde Police’s actions.
I accept that there is an undertaking to review the legislation. My comments are not about conviction rates or anything like that; my comments are about a public perception in some quarters of the legislation’s disproportionate impact on a group of individuals.
We can ask the chief constable to comment on that. However, what I am saying is that it is useful for the committee to have information that has been given to any member, including contact details. We need that so that the committee can put first-hand information—not hearsay—to the appropriate source.
I wish to clarify the statement made by Bill McCluskey. He did not state that solicitors were subject to surveillance; he stated:
“There is no doubt supporters are routinely subject to surveillance.”
I mentioned the usefulness of the legislation with regard to legal challenges. I raised that issue only because a strong part of the evidence in support of the introduction of the legislation from the police service was that breach of the peace had lost its efficacy and therefore new legislation was needed to put the matter beyond challenge. Members might recall that I offered wide-eyed optimism in response to that view. I am not suggesting for one moment that I thought that the legislation would be beyond challenge, but that was the specific evidence from British Transport Police at the time.
Members might also remember that on a Tuesday some weeks ago, some supporters came through to the Parliament to put their case in relation to the legislation. Part of the evidence they gave was that, when they arrived at the Parliament, they were subject to surveillance. Indeed, they were interviewed by the police at 10 o’clock in the morning in George Square before they even set off for the Parliament. They found that somewhat challenging and sinister.
There is legislation in place. You referred to RIPSA, and if people have not applied that correctly, that should be acted on—I absolutely support that.
I very much agree. That is the point that I am making.
I do not have much to add to what has already been said. I agree with the convener that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and that, if we want to take the matter seriously, we must have something on the record to consider.
In his response to the committee, the Lord Advocate refers to the fact that, although he has not received any representations on his guidelines, he
“would be happy to consider any suggested revisions”.
If we are to look at any written submissions, we might want to look at those guidelines, too.
I did not know anything about what happened in George Square before the supporters came to the Parliament. They obviously met there before they went on to Queen Street station. I want to speak to those supporters and hear about what happened. Normally, anyone who is travelling through to Edinburgh just arrives at the train station and off they go.
It is important to quote some of the figures in Steve House’s reply to the committee, because the policing of the Green Brigade was specifically asked about. He said:
“72 members of the public ... have made complaints ... Of these, 34 have refused to engage with the police beyond their initial e-mail, despite a number of attempts”—
That is about the incident in Gallowgate. I want to park that issue.
No, convener. This is an important matter. Your letter was sent to Steve House under those auspices.
We have information from MSPs that has been given by people who have contacted them; other MSPs have not seen that information. I am making the point that 34 of the 72 complainants refused to give further evidence. In addition, the people who were supposedly to give evidence about the incident came from all over Scotland; some even came from Cyprus. I am trying to put the matter into context.
That is fine. You have put it into context. The response is also on our website and therefore in the public domain.
I want to focus on the legislation itself. The suggestion is that we write to the chief constable, pointing him to our discussion and the issues where we might think that the legislation is being misapplied. What I seek from members are contact details for anyone who feels that they have direct evidence that they can give the committee. As members will see from our work programme, we will not really be able to pick this issue up until the new year, but that does not mean that it has been parked. The last thing we want is legislation that is wonky in places; I am not saying that this particular piece of legislation is, but we need to check the position. In any case, we cannot proceed simply on the basis of comments, however worthy they might be, from Graeme Pearson and John Finnie. The committee needs something in front of it that it can challenge; indeed, we might well get people in to advise us and test their evidence.
I want the committee to make it very clear that someone with a complaint about the constabulary’s impropriety should not come to the Scottish Parliament with it. Instead, they should present themselves at a desk to make that complaint. That is why I think that Sandra White’s comments are very valid. I thought it a very compelling point that although people made complaints to the police and wanted to make assertions, they did not follow that up.
We have never been and never will be the last court of appeal and are not some kind of complaints procedure, but we are entitled to look at the operation of legislation. I agree with you in that respect. You have all made your points—
I want to say something—if I am allowed to—about your suggestion that we write to the chief constable, pointing out certain areas where we think the legislation has been misapplied. The point is that we do not know.
I never said that.
But you used the word “think”.
I talked about areas where the legislation might have been misapplied. I am not claiming for one minute that it has been misapplied; it is just that there has been an allegation to that effect. We have no evidence that it has been misapplied. None of us would want anything to be misapplied, but I have not claimed that it has been. That is the whole point about seeking independent evidence from people outwith the Parliament, not as some kind of appeal to us but to allow us to consider the validity of what has been said and to put that to the chief constable, if we must.
Following on from John Finnie’s comments, I think that people with a legitimate complaint should go to the first port of call, which is the police, not the Scottish Parliament.
I have already made that point.
I know, but the suggestion is that we write to the chief constable Steve House about allegations made by those who have written to MSPs, so therefore we think that something is wrong. Surely if those individuals think that something is wrong they should write to the police. If that then comes through, we could consider the matter.
Oh, dear. I feel that I am going round in a wild circle here. All I will be doing on your behalf is writing to the chief constable, saying that some allegations have been made. We will simply be passing on the information; we are not doing anything about it just now because we do not have any independent evidence in front of us. The record will be there and I have no doubt that the chief constable pays attention to what happens in this committee, particularly when such issues arise—notwithstanding, of course, what happened in the previous evidence session. That is all that we are going to do. It is up to people to write to the committee not as some court of appeal or complaints process but to point out, “This is what happened with the legislation,” and then we have to find out whether that, indeed, is the case. All these things can be passed to the police for comment in the first place.
Can I move on now?
Yes.
Rod, I want to move on. Is your point crucial?
I feel that we need to put something on record in relation to the incident in the Gallowgate, even if we just say that we have read and noted the correspondence.
We have read and noted the correspondence. The response—and indeed this discussion—can be found on the website for anyone to read and challenge.