National Football Stadium (Mike Tyson)
I call the committee to order.
There is a motion before us that I have deemed to be competent, but I need the committee's permission for us to proceed with the debate on it, given that it is a motion without notice.
I move,
That motion S1M-00893 be taken without notice.
The question is, that motion S1M-00893 be taken without notice. Are members minded to accept the motion?
Yes.
Motion agreed to.
I have also decided that we can debate two amendments to the motion: one in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, the other in the name of Brian Monteith. I assume, Brian, that your amendment is a delete all and insert amendment.
Yes, it is.
I shall therefore take Nicola Sturgeon's amendment as an amendment to Mary Mulligan's motion, and yours as a delete all and insert to that motion. I ask Mary Mulligan to move her motion.
I thank the committee for taking this motion. I know that it was proposed at short notice, but I thought it appropriate that this committee should have the opportunity to put its point of view, as it has been considering sporting issues in the new, devolved Scotland.
The people whom I represent have told me clearly that they do not want Mike Tyson to fight here in Scotland. The man committed a crime and served a sentence, and it has been suggested that that should be the end of the matter. However, I think that the issue is much deeper than that. The fact is that the man has shown no remorse for that crime and therefore shows a complete lack of understanding of why people are upset by the fact that he still thinks he can represent sport in any shape or form.
It is appropriate for this committee to be able to debate this resolution. Unfortunately, I do not think that the same can be said of Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. I have tried to keep the resolution in line with the remit of the committee in an area in which we can have influence and show some understanding of the issues. I therefore do not accept Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. As has been said, Brian Monteith's amendment just seems to be a complete alternative. I therefore do not suggest that members should vote for that either.
I fully understand the financial pressures that are being put on Hampden. The committee knows the difficulties that it has gone through to get the stadium up and running. However, I do not think that one can use that as an excuse to reject all morality in this case, and there is a moral question as to whether we should allow people such as Mike Tyson to use a national stadium, a stadium of standing in this country of Scotland. Those who have taken their 30 pieces of silver and run away have been shown to be wrong in the past. The Scottish Football Association and those who are involved with the national stadium are going down those lines. I think that that is wrong and that the committee should take this opportunity to say so.
As far as I am concerned, sport should be associated with a positive image of being healthy, being involved with the community and showing team spirit. None of those qualities could be attributed to Mike Tyson. Over recent years, we have seen a number of sports people, men and women, come out in support of a number of good causes to show that sporting people can be associated with what is positive in all our lives. Here in Edinburgh, the Hibernian and Hearts football teams have supported the Zero Tolerance campaign against violence against women. That has done a great deal of good. I can see only damage being done by accepting that Mike Tyson should appear at our national stadium here in Scotland.
I move,
That the Education, Culture and Sport Committee calls upon the Scottish Football Association to reconsider its proposal to host the boxing contest involving Mike Tyson, considers that it is inappropriate to allow the use of Scotland's national stadium by an individual who has been convicted of the crime of rape and considers that he represents an image of sport and boxing in particular that is unacceptable in this country and which, if the bout goes ahead, will encourage young people to believe that violence, particularly violence against women, is to be tolerated.
I agree with much of what Mary Mulligan has said. The majority of people in the Parliament and, I believe, Scotland are firmly of the view that Mike Tyson is not welcome in Scotland and that to allow him to come here and the fight to go ahead would send all the wrong messages to women and young people in Scotland, and to Scotland as a whole.
There is also a great deal of concern that Jack Straw did not properly consider the Parliament's view before he took his decision. I am sure that many people inside and outside the Parliament were as angry as I was to hear that Jack Straw had met the promoters of the fight days before taking his decision but chose to ignore the views of the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland. In the light of the consensus in the Parliament that the fight should not be allowed to go ahead, it is appropriate for the committee to ask the Scottish Executive, acting in the public interest, to do everything in its power to ensure that the fight does not go ahead.
It is important that nothing be ruled out at this stage, including court action in the form of judicial review of Jack Straw's decision. There is legal opinion to suggest that a judicial review might be successful. We know that women's groups around Scotland are considering taking such action. There is a precedent in the judicial review of Jack Straw's previous decision to allow Mike Tyson into the country, so that should not be ruled out at this stage, if we are determined to do everything in our power to stop Mike Tyson setting foot in Scotland.
As Mary Mulligan said, it is right to ask the SFA to reconsider its decision. However, I do not think that, by doing that, the Scottish Executive, acting on behalf of the Parliament and in the public interest, can abdicate its responsibility to do everything in its power to stop Mike Tyson coming here. If there is the consensus in the Parliament that I believe there is on the need to stop the fight going ahead, we have to be prepared to do everything possible to ensure that it is stopped. My amendment expands on Mary's motion to ensure that we send the strong message to the Scottish Executive that it should explore every opportunity to stop the fight happening and that nothing should be ruled out at this stage.
I move amendment S1M-00893.1, to insert at end:
and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure by whatever means possible and, if necessary, by arranging for a judicial review to be sought, that the boxing match scheduled for 24 June 2000 at Hampden Stadium does not go ahead.
The proper place for this debate is Westminster; the proper people to represent the views of the Scottish public are the Westminster MPs; and the proper minister to take up the issue and represent Scotland's voice is John Reid. The Conservative party entered the Parliament to support the constitutional settlement, which was endorsed by a referendum of the Scottish people, and which clearly leaves immigration policy in the hands of the Home Secretary. Accordingly, it is the Home Secretary who should take the decision whether Michael Tyson should be allowed into the country. It is correct that any protest should be voiced through members of the Westminster Parliament and through John Reid, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Once that decision has been taken, it is not for us to suggest to the SFA how it should run its affairs. Earlier today, we recoiled from telling local authorities how to run rural schools and whether they could close them. None of us wanted local authorities to be prevented from taking decisions that were for them to take. It is important that the SFA act as commercial manager in running the national stadium, within the law and the licensing regulations by which Hampden is bound. The SFA should make proper commercial judgments.
I acknowledge some of the arguments. I do not support Mike Tyson in a sporting sense—I never liked him as a boxer—nor do I support his activities outside the ring, which brought great condemnation upon him. However, if anything was to be done, it should have been done by the boxing associations, which should certainly have thrown Mike Tyson out of boxing. Yet, people who have fought him and suffered at his hands have chosen to fight him again. It is not for the committee to challenge the SFA's decision.
Comments have been made about the remorse of Mike Tyson. We cannot expect remorse from a man who believes that he is not guilty and that he has suffered injustice. I have no idea whether he is right or wrong; I am not aware of all the facts.
I am concerned that we do not lose sight of the need to encourage rehabilitation. When I attended Murrayfield stadium to hear Mick Jagger, I did not see that as an endorsement of Mick Jagger's drug taking or his family life. I went to hear the Rolling Stones and to enjoy their music.
The SFA's decision to allow the bout to go ahead, or people's decision to watch the bout, does not condone Mike Tyson's record as a rapist. He has been convicted of a terrible crime, but he has served his time and it is only proper that people who have served their time have an opportunity for rehabilitation. In the same way, I support the right of Jimmy Boyle—a convicted murderer—to go abroad and sell his sculptures as a reformed character. That is what a liberal establishment is about. If we were to meddle in the SFA's purely commercial decision because we do not have the authority to stop Mike Tyson getting into Scotland, we would be abusing the constitutional settlement that we all agreed to.
I move amendment S1M-00893.2, to leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert
believes that it is for the commercial managers of Scotland's national stadium to determine what events should be held at that venue so long as the promoters and participants of any such event meet with the local and national licensing and legislative requirements.
I support Mary Mulligan's motion. I hope that the committee can agree on the motion and that Nicola Sturgeon and Brian Monteith will withdraw their amendments so that we can have a stronger position. I know that an SNP motion on the matter will be debated in the chamber tomorrow. My position is clear: the SNP is using the Tyson case to question the constitutional settlement. We can all unite around the fact that we are opposed to Mike Tyson appearing at Hampden. Instead of considering what we cannot do, we should think about what we can do within our powers. It is within our locus to consider the running of Hampden stadium.
It is important that we treat Mike Tyson fairly and do not treat him any differently because of his wealth or his fame. However, there is no doubt that his reputation for violence against women is almost as great as his reputation as a boxer. I do not think that it is appropriate for the SFA to give him centre stage in our national stadium. Celtic Football Club—a private company—decided that a Mike Tyson fight at Celtic Park was not worth sullying its reputation for. I am appalled that the SFA—the custodians of the national interest as regards the sport—should think that the reputation of the Scots will not be damaged by its allowing Mike Tyson to fight.
I think that Mary Mulligan will want to write to the SFA with the wording of whatever motion we agree today. The SFA could do a great deal to endorse the Scottish Executive's strategy against domestic abuse, and to send out a message that violence against women is completely unacceptable in this country. No matter what position the SFA finds itself in, it could do an awful lot, and I expect some sort of response from it.
The messages that we send to people are important. I disagree with Brian Monteith's point about people not going to see Mick Jagger because they agree with his lifestyle. We must be careful what messages we send to women and young people in this country. Mike Tyson is not the kind of role model that any member would support. I disagree strongly with Jack Straw, and would not even attempt to defend his decision. Along with the majority of MSPs—as was demonstrated last week—I think that he was wrong.
I am reluctant to go down the constitutional route. I do not doubt Nicola Sturgeon's motives, as I know that she cares deeply about the issue. However, there was a lot of anger from women members in the chamber last week when the matter seemed to be turned into a constitutional issue.
When I asked someone why Hampden was built, I was told that the reason was national pride. It is Scotland's national stadium, so it is fitting that the committee supports the provision of extra funding for it, and that the Executive should find ways to ensure that we have a national stadium. However, if the Tyson fight goes ahead, that will be a matter not for national pride, but for national shame. I support Mary Mulligan's motion.
I hope that we can send out a strong message to the people of Scotland and to the SFA. My surgery was held in a supermarket on Saturday. All sorts of people were coming up to me—wee old ladies, folk with families and granddads with bairns—and saying, "We're not happy with this. You need to do something about it." The message from the people of Scotland is that the fight should not go ahead.
I endorse wholeheartedly what Cathy Peattie says. This guy is a rapist and a thug. It is a disgrace that he should come to this country.
The option of having a judicial review was suggested before, when Mike Tyson came to Manchester, but it did not work. It might not work this time, and would mean nothing to most people. I would ask the people of Scotland to stick two fingers up right in his face. Every door of every restaurant and pub should be slammed in his face. Taxis should avoid him, and drivers should splash him with puddles. The only way to get the message across to him is to ridicule him and boo him down, and I ask the whole of Scotland to join in giving two fingers to Tyson.
Nicola Sturgeon's amendment calls for a judicial review to be arranged if necessary, to prevent the fight from going ahead. When Mike Tyson was scheduled to fight in Manchester, a judicial review was suggested. We were told that that judicial review did not go ahead because the tickets had been printed and there would have been commercial problems. Jack Straw did not decide to allow Mike Tyson to enter the country without reference to the fact that Mike Tyson is famous, a world champion and a millionaire. If Mike Tyson had been just anybody, he would not be coming here. We must ask why Jack Straw made that decision.
I agree with Cathy Peattie: Jack Straw's decision was wrong. That is why Nicola Sturgeon's amendment was lodged. It is an amendment not on the constitution, but on a judicial issue. It suggests that the Scottish Parliament says to the Home Secretary that his decision was wrong, not because we disagree with it, but because, judicially, he came to the wrong conclusion. That is why the matter must go to a judicial review. The Parliament can say as often as it likes that it disagrees with the decision on moral grounds; however, if we believe that the Home Secretary was judicially incorrect, we should seek a judicial review of his decision.
Someone said that it is a matter of what the committee and the Parliament can do. Well, we can talk as much as we like, but this is a reserved matter. We should produce action, even if that action must be taken through the judicial system. Nicola Sturgeon's amendment would allow the Parliament to effect a decision on the matter. Rather than talking about it endlessly, we could stop the man from coming here—and that is the only way in which we can achieve that. I urge the committee to consider the matter in judicial terms, rather than constitutional terms.
On one level, Brian Monteith's amendment is no more than a statement of fact. It states that
"it is for the commercial managers of Scotland's National Stadium to determine what events should be held at that venue so long as the promoters and participants of any such event meet with the local and national licensing and legislative requirements."
That is obviously true, but what is significant about the amendment is not what is in it, but what has been left out. In essence, it says that the committee, as a committee of the Parliament, does not have the right to express its view or to tell the SFA the views of members who are representing their constituents. Brian Monteith is rejecting the idea that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has a place in considering the matter when an event happens at our national sporting venue.
As members will recall, earlier this afternoon I pressed Sam Galbraith, not for the first time, on the allocation of Scottish cup final tickets for Hampden on Saturday. He made clear in his answer that there is nothing in the Hampden rescue package to allow him to direct National Stadium plc, either on who appears at Hampden or on ticket allocations. I do not dispute that. However, that does not preclude us from taking a moral position and having the right to express the views that have been put to us in our constituencies over the past few days.
Equally, we should not support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. It is open to any citizen to seek a judicial review of a Government decision in the courts—that is clear—but to say that one democratically elected Parliament should challenge the decision of a minister who is accountable to another democratically elected Parliament, through the courts, is quite a different matter. That action could only undermine the devolution settlement; Fiona McLeod's speech reinforced the suspicion that the amendment is designed to do that. The courts are as much a part of the constitution as the UK Parliament or this devolved Parliament. When the courts seek to rule on the decisions of one Parliament at the request of another, that is a constitutional matter.
Nicola Sturgeon's amendment goes beyond a judicial review and offers the opportunity to fall into an old Trotskyist trap, by saying "by whatever means possible". The Parliament cannot endorse that and go down that road. We should support Mary Mulligan's motion, which allows us to express the views of our constituents in the most appropriate way.
I have said before, on other issues, that I do not like politicians to ban things. Nevertheless, I agreed to the motion last week and I shall support Mary Mulligan's motion today, with some reservations.
When I lived in Glasgow as a student, I used to watch amateur boxing. I would still watch the big fights if they were ever on BBC or ITV. I do not regard the Tyson fight as sport in any shape or form. It is a tawdry exercise. A once-dominant fighter who is near the fag end of his career is cashing in on his notoriety by staging a non-event fight.
The audience is willingly submitting to being financially exploited in its desire to witness crude violence. It seems to me that the fight is likely to be a short-lived mismatch. We are talking about a man who, although he was a powerful fighter, has bitten off the ear of his opponent when in the ring and who has raped a woman in his hotel room. This is a man who is troubled in many ways.
If I stand back, I can recognise that Tyson is a victim of the social and cultural pressures of his experience. I can understand the argument that he has served his sentence and should be able to undertake rehabilitation, but there is no sign that any rehabilitation is taking place.
For me, the clinching argument is what Fiona McLeod said: if Joe Public had a similar record, it is very unlikely that he would be allowed in the country. I do not think that the rules that apply to the ordinary guy should be changed for the sake of Mike Tyson, for the reasons that Fiona outlined. The whole thing is a farce that should be ended before it begins.
I worry about Nicola Sturgeon's amendment in one regard. I suspect that a judicial review would find that nothing wrong has happened. We all know that something wrong has happened; it might be legally right that Tyson can enter the country, but it is morally wrong. I think that we should take the moral stand.
Before I call those members who have lodged amendments, does any other committee member have something to say? If not, I will ask Brian Monteith to sum up on his amendment.
In essence, there are two arguments here. One is a separate argument in relation to Nicola Sturgeon's amendment which, as I mentioned earlier, I feel strongly about in regard to the constitutional issue. There may be a point in a judicial review, but if there is, it is for MPs to raise. The SNP has MPs in Westminster and that is the proper place for such a step.
Moving on to the issues that surround my amendment, I want to ask where we should stop. It was quite correct of Lewis Macdonald to point out that my amendment is fact and that the committee could make a judgment on the conduct of the SFA in managing the stadium. However, does that mean that we should say that convicted criminals who have served their time should not be allowed into the national stadium? That might be going too far. Perhaps it should just apply to convicted rapists—we could narrow it down to rapists, because that is a particularly unpopular crime, as it should be. However, that is just as absurd and such a stance would clearly throw the committee into disrepute.
We are not taking that approach not because it is impractical but because we want to send a message to Mike Tyson—we want to say that what he has done is wrong. I do not think that the committee's message will make a blind bit of difference. I do not believe that it will hurt Mike Tyson, because he is not the one who wants the fight to take place at Hampden so much—that is the promoter, Frank Warren. It would be wrong to think that we could damage Mike Tyson's pocket.
We will not be sending the wrong message to the people who attend and watch the match, no matter how long it lasts. The message will not be that as a nation, we are condoning Mike Tyson's record as a rapist by allowing the fight to go ahead, but that we are an open society that allows people, even if they have committed heinous crimes, to serve their time and to rehabilitate themselves by going about the only business some of them know.
It was Ken Macintosh who stressed the importance of sending a unanimous message from the committee. I suspect that the message will not be unanimous, but I will support Mary Mulligan's motion regardless of what happens to the amendment. I think that the amendment would strengthen the motion, because it would take us beyond words of support by suggesting action that we can take.
My amendment is not about whether Jack Straw should have the power to make the decision—that is a bigger argument that I suspect we will engage in many times over the coming years. Neither is the amendment about whether we agree or disagree morally with Jack Straw's decision—it is clear that we disagree with it, morally. It is about whether Jack Straw has correctly applied the rules. There is doubt—to say the least—that the rules have been applied correctly. Mike Tyson has not been treated as a normal member of the public. The point of a judicial review is to test whether the rules have been correctly applied.
Lewis Macdonald's point about one Parliament undermining another by taking court action does not stand up to scrutiny. Nobody uses that example when the European Union challenges Westminster decisions through the European Court of Justice. That argument does not stand up. Lewis Macdonald is citing constitutional arguments that I am not making, which is to be regretted.
Jamie Stone said that judicial review means nothing to most people. That may be technically true, but people will want to see that the Parliament, and the Executive on behalf of the Parliament, is doing everything it can to stop this fight going ahead. My amendment says that there is an avenue that is worthy of exploration; we should not shut it off at the moment. There is a precedent to show that it might be successful; if it is not tried, it cannot succeed. The argument that it might not succeed is not strong.
My amendment is about sending a strong message that we do not want Mike Tyson here and, if necessary, doing more than that. We should stand up and be counted, and be prepared to act. The amendment would strengthen the motion, which is otherwise very good.
I am disappointed in Brian Monteith's amendment. The figure of Pontius Pilate springs to mind—I am feeling biblical today. Are we supposed to deny all concerns about the fight and the messages that it will send out, or are we going to stand up and say what we and our constituents are thinking? It is important that we make our views known on this matter. Brian is wrong to say that that is not our place. My great concern is that unrepented violence is being associated with sport, which is the wrong message to send to our young people, women and men. That is why we must say clearly that we are unhappy with the situation, regardless of any other decisions that have been made. If there is anything we can do to stop the fight going ahead, we should take that opportunity.
I hope that members of the committee will unite in support of this motion on a matter that we all feel strongly about. I have tried to keep it within our remit, which is why I will not support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment. Her amendment goes beyond our remit; I understand that its wording is part of the motion that the Parliament will debate tomorrow. In content, Nicola's amendment is incorrect because, as Lewis Macdonald said, there is the risk of pitting Parliament against Parliament, which would be wrong. This committee would be the wrong place to decide to do that, although I accept that that issue will be debated in the Parliament tomorrow.
It is important that sport is used to send the right messages to people and that it is a way of bringing individuals and communities together. Mike Tyson is performing in a spectacle—as Ian Jenkins said, it is not a sporting event—for all the wrong reasons. We should say clearly that it is a spectacle that the Scottish people do not want to go ahead. It should definitely not take place in what is regarded as a prestigious Scottish national stadium. I hope, therefore, that the committee will support my motion.
The question is, that amendment S1M-893.1, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Abstentions
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 1.
Amendment disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment S1M-893.2, in the name of Brian Monteith, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment disagreed to.
The next question is, that motion S1M-893, in the name of Mary Mulligan, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Fiona McLeod (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Education Culture and Sport Committee calls upon the Scottish Football Association to reconsider its proposal to host the boxing contest involving Mike Tyson, considers that it is inappropriate to allow the use of Scotland's national stadium by an individual who has been convicted of the crime of rape and considers that he represents an image of sport and boxing in particular that is unacceptable in this country and which, if the bout goes ahead, will encourage young people to believe that violence, particularly violence against women, is to be tolerated.
I suggest that the committee writes today to the SFA on behalf of Mary Mulligan as a matter of urgency, setting out the terms of the motion and urging the SFA to reconsider its decision. We should also include Kenneth Macintosh's suggestion that the SFA should examine the possibility of an initiative relating to domestic violence and the use of sporting personalities to promote intolerance of domestic violence.
I thank the committee for its consideration of the matter and I hand the chair back to Mary.
I am very aware of the time, colleagues, so we will push on.