The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11395, in the name of Elaine Murray, on tackling sectarianism. I will allow a few moments for members, particularly on the front benches, to change position.
I call Elaine Murray to speak to and move the motion. Ms Murray, you have 10 minutes.
14:40
When, on 14 December 2011, the Scottish Government used its majority to railroad through the Parliament the controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs stated:
“Once the legislation is in place, we can get down to the difficult and long-term work of tackling sectarianism.”
She said that she wanted
“to begin the process of healing the divide and then celebrating this nation’s differences and diversity.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2011; c 4676.]
I am sure that we all agree that the work of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland is an important contribution to that difficult and long-term work. The group, which is chaired by Dr Duncan Morrow, published its independent advice to the Scottish ministers and its report on activity in December last year. That was 70 pages detailing the history of sectarianism in Scotland; how it is manifested in today’s Scotland, including a working definition; and recommendations on how the attitudes and actions of a range of institutions could help to counter sectarianism. It is the most substantial piece of work that has been carried out on the issue.
The Scottish Government published its response to the independent advice in February, and a number of other agencies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have discussed their responses to the report. However, despite the Scottish Government’s professed concern about sectarianism in Scotland, it has not found time to present even a statement to the Parliament, still less a debate on the report or its response. I am aware that the minister has asked the advisory group to continue until March next year, but that is not a valid reason to postpone discussion of the independent advice by Parliament for more than 15 months. Moreover, that is when the funding of the 44 core projects is due to run out.
Does the member accept that—
Can we have Christine Grahame’s microphone on, please?
My card is in, Presiding Officer.
It is working now.
I know that I have a big voice, but I will obey the rules.
Does the member accept that, on 4 March this year, the Justice Committee took substantial evidence on the report from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and from Scottish Government officials? The member took part in that meeting herself and asked a couple of questions.
Indeed, but I am talking about an in-depth investigation by committees and, in particular, discussion by the Parliament given its interest in the legislation. Moreover, the Justice Committee took evidence on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, not the report. It is the report that I want to discuss.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I had better press on.
The frustration of the anti-sectarianism campaigners Nil by Mouth has built up to such a stage that, before the October recess, they requested that members of the Scottish Parliament find time to debate the report—not the act. Dr Morrow has stated that
“it is vital that the report and its implications are considered.”
The Herald, a publication that is normally fairly sympathetic to the Scottish Government, ran an editorial on 6 October that reminded the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs that she had welcomed the findings of the Morrow report and, in response, had stated that the Government
“will change Scotland for the better and build sectarian-free communities to benefit all of our people”.
The editorial stated:
“It is bizarre that this report ... has not been debated in the Scottish Parliament.”
It asked:
“How is the work progressing? Are the outcomes being monitored? Is the spending appropriate? What will happen when funding runs out next year?”
Those are good questions. Many of us would be interested to learn the answers, and I hope that the minister may be able to provide them today.
The advisory group recognised that Scotland was at the start of a journey and called for political leadership. Indeed, that was its first recommendation, so it is disappointing that, to date, the Scottish Government seems to have been reluctant to show that leadership—certainly, in Parliament.
The Government’s response to the advisory group’s report appeared, in some ways, to be an abdication of responsibility, as it pointed out that some of the recommendations did not relate directly to the Government. That is not the point. We need to know whether the Government is taking matters forward, how it is doing so and which recommendations apply to it.
The Scottish Government’s response to the report states:
“The Scottish Government recognises the need for a broad and holistic approach”.
We agree with that. It also states that the Government has
“written to key organisations inviting them to respond to the recommendations”
that apply to them by the end of June 2014.
In a way, that makes it even more surprising that four months on from that deadline the Scottish Parliament itself still has to discuss the recommendations. In the absence of the Government being prepared to use its time to initiate debate on this important report, Scottish Labour has offered some of its time to start the process.
The report highlighted some key aspects of sectarianism in today’s Scotland: that it varies significantly by geography, class, age, gender, occupation and community; that the impact varies from community to community and is affected by historical religious antagonisms, class, political association and commercial interests; that the people involved are not necessarily still actively participating in a faith community but have cultural affiliations that can lead to an us-versus-them mentality; and that sectarianism is not just overtly aggressive bigotry or anti-Catholic or anti-Irish prejudice.
In terms of addressing sectarianism, the report recommended, as I have already indicated, the importance of leadership at all levels. The advisory group did not consider that new legislation was required and felt that existing legislation on human rights, equalities and hate crime should be applied. Members might recall that Opposition members in Parliament made that very point when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was being discussed.
The advisory group also recognised that to learn more about sectarian attitudes further research was needed on, for example, the role of gender victimisation and social media; the impact of potentially divisive events such as parades or, indeed, football matches; employment discrimination; and other forms of tension within sections of the Christian faith. Crucially, the report found that organisations and institutions at all levels must take responsibility for sectarianism, which of course includes the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, taking a cross-party approach.
The Government amendment refers to scrutiny by the Equal Opportunities Committee, but that was one session with Dr Morrow and Dr Rosie, and there was no questioning of the minister or of stakeholders. That is not scrutiny, nor indeed was the session in the Justice Committee, which was about the 2012 act. The issue is the report and the responses to it.
The Equal Opportunities Committee did look at the report and agreed that, because the advisory group was carrying on, it would look at it again in future—which we will do before Christmas, I think. We did not feel that there was any point in duplicating the work of the advisory group, because we want to build on it. Does the member accept that?
I have seen the letter from the convener of the committee. As a member of the Justice Committee, which could also look at the report, I accept that parliamentary committees have a very heavy workload. However, my point is that the Parliament should be considering and discussing the report. Given how important the sectarianism issue was considered to be when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was being rushed through Parliament, why are we not considering the report in the Parliament?
I thank the minister for facilitating meetings with representatives from the advisory group for myself and other party spokespeople. I found the meetings very useful. The Government states in its response to the report that there has been a great deal of cross-party support for the need to tackle sectarianism and that it wants to build on that constructive and positive engagement: so do we.
Dr Morrow has kindly offered to meet members of the Scottish Labour group of MSPs, and I am sure that he has met members of other parties. We will meet him at the beginning of next month, and I know that several of my colleagues are very keen to take up that opportunity. However, a debate in Parliament is one of the mechanisms that we can use to highlight the issues and the actions that are being taken.
It is not just the responsibility of politicians to undertake a leadership role. The Morrow report also places such responsibility on churches, local authorities, journalists, football clubs and community organisations. The report highlights the requirement for strategic financial support and that it needs to be provided for community activity and education that could address sectarianism at the grassroots level; and that the community-based projects that have been supported by the Scottish Government since 2012 ought to be evaluated to determine what has actually been successful.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am afraid that I must get on.
I know that we will hear from the Government that it committed £9 million over three years to research, education and community-based and policing initiatives aimed at addressing sectarianism. I hope that we will hear today from the minister whether the evaluation that the advisory group requested is under way.
The Scottish Labour Party has consistently taken sectarianism very seriously. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Government created the offence of religiously aggravated breach of the peace in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and funded Nil by Mouth and sense over sectarianism. Those of us who were here at the time will recall that Jack McConnell, as First Minister, personally championed a number of measures to address what he described as “Scotland’s secret shame”, including supporting shared campuses and the twinning of denominational and nondenominational schools.
Our motion also refers to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which all the Opposition parties felt was unnecessary and unhelpful. Despite the broad remit of the advisory group’s work, that act was placed off limits by ministers and was therefore not discussed at any point.
I have only a few seconds left. I would have liked to have made a number of other points, but I argue that the 2012 act was an inadequate, knee-jerk reaction. I think that many of us felt that, and I suspect that the Government may feel that way, too, but that is no reason for the issue to be kicked into the long grass until after March 2015. We must discuss the wider issues around education and the preventative measures that need to be taken to tackle sectarianism.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that, in December 2013, the Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland published its report, Independent Advice to Scottish Ministers and Report on Activity 9 August 2012 – 15 November 2013; considers that the report’s recommendations require action from groups and organisations across civic Scotland; regrets that neither this report nor the Scottish Government’s response of February 2014 has been debated in the Parliament or scrutinised in depth by a parliamentary committee; agrees that education and prevention are the best ways of tackling sectarianism, and believes that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which was railroaded through the Parliament by the Scottish Government, is flawed and should be repealed.
14:50
I assure everyone in the chamber that this Government remains completely committed to tackling sectarianism. The level of that commitment can be seen in the immense amount of work that has been undertaken over the past three years.
Elaine Murray talked at length about the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which in our view has a clear role to play in meeting the commitment that was made. There are welcome indications of success—offences of religious hatred and offending under the act have decreased, so it is working.
It is important to remember that the act was brought in for a reason—to tackle offensive and abusive behaviour at and around football. In recent days, we have been reminded why the act is needed by the online abuse, including threats of violence and death, that has been sent to players and their families. People need to remember the extraordinarily heated atmosphere in which the legislation emerged.
We have never tried to claim that sectarianism is confined to football, which is why we have invested a record £9 million over three years to tackle this scourge through a range of activities. That has been the biggest commitment that any Government in Scotland has ever made to anti-sectarianism. As was stated in the draft budget last month, I am making a further commitment to invest more than £3 million in 2015-16 to support community-based initiatives to tackle sectarianism and to further develop our understanding through research, while continuing to support work to tackle racial or ethnic hatred. It is a pity that Elaine Murray did not read that line in the draft budget.
When I came into this job, I had two very clear aims for the anti-sectarianism agenda. The first was to ensure that the work that we were supporting was getting into communities and tackling the problems that they were experiencing, and the second was to build a robust research and knowledge base on the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland so that future policy could be made on the basis of evidence and not innuendo. When I first came into this job, I remember being quite shocked to discover that there was virtually no information or evidence base available in Scotland. We have spent considerable time and money beginning to put that work into place to ensure that we have the necessary evidence in future.
That is why I have ensured that our work is a good example of what we are calling the Scottish approach, which is informed by the Christie commission. It is an approach that is assets based and which places the needs of communities at the centre of the agenda. There are 44 community-based projects, which are bottom up and not top down. They are allowing us to get to the heart of the issue as it is experienced by communities. The solutions that are emerging are being tailored to the specific issues that are identified.
How many of those 44 funded projects will continue after March next year? Has any evaluation of their success been undertaken?
Of course that is happening. No project has any right to assume that funding will continue without its outcomes being assessed, and that is one of the key jobs that the advisory group is involved in doing.
At the same time as the projects are taking place, our comprehensive research programme is helping us to build the most holistic evidence base on the issue that we have ever had. The outcomes of all that work have been developed in partnership with the independent advisory group.
It is important to be clear that we are taking a new approach for which time is needed to allow the projects to deliver and evaluate their initiatives, and for research to be carried out and completed. A whole slew of research is being undertaken or has just been completed; indeed, a vast amount of work is under way, and the timescales for delivery will ensure that the evidence that we get back will be robust and informative.
I whole-heartedly welcomed the wide-ranging report that the advisory group published on 13 December 2013, but the point that Elaine Murray missed was that it was an interim report that aimed interim recommendations at organisations across Scottish public life. I also point out that we responded to the report in February. At the same time, and in recognition of the far-reaching recommendations that had been made, I wrote to all the key organisations, including football clubs and authorities, Police Scotland, COSLA and religious leaders, to highlight the recommendations that they needed to give consideration to and address.
A number of the advisory group’s recommendations called for the development of a full research programme. The baseline for our research has been the Scottish Government’s literature review, entitled “An Examination of the Evidence on Sectarianism in Scotland”, which was published in 2013. Since then, we have built on the advisory group’s recommendations by publishing information from the 2013 Scottish crime and justice survey and Scottish household survey; statistics on hate crime statistics, including religious hate crime, from 2013-14; and information relating to religion on demographics, population, households and health from the 2011 census.
All of that will be supplemented next year by the completion and publication of research on the community impact of public processions; a Scottish social attitudes survey module on sectarianism; a study of community experiences of sectarianism in Scotland; and information relating to religion on the labour market, education, housing and transport from the 2011 census.
Of course, academic research in itself does not tell the whole story, which is why, as I have said, we have accepted the advisory group’s recommendation to use funded projects as data sources to ensure that the real experiences of those working in communities can be reflected when we pull all the information together. That, I am afraid to say, takes time. I do not believe that anyone is under any illusions that there are any quick fixes; we need to allow all of the pieces of work to complete before we can bring them all together next year.
I know that the advisory group does not want its report to become a political football, so I was very encouraged when Dr Morrow confirmed that he had been meeting spokespeople from all political parties as well as the Equal Opportunities Committee to discuss the agenda. I fully recognise that there has consistently been a great deal of cross-party support for the agenda and, as recommended by the advisory group, I would like to explore the potential for building on that in the future.
We are, and have always been, committed to tackling sectarianism, and we recognise that we need to work together on the issue. Our work with the advisory group will continue, and I look forward to its final report, which I am sure will help us all to move this agenda forward.
I move amendment S4M-11395.1, to leave out from “considers” to end and insert
“welcomes the report and its recommendations, which require action from groups and organisations across civic Scotland; awaits the final report of the advisory group in 2015 and welcomes the scrutiny given to last year’s report by the Equal Opportunities Committee and the committee’s ongoing interest in this issue; agrees that education and prevention are the best ways of tackling sectarianism, and looks forward to the statutory report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which the Scottish Government will lay before the Parliament next year.”
14:57
I congratulate Labour on allocating its parliamentary time to a debate on this important issue.
Expressions of religious hatred, regardless of how they are articulated, are completely unacceptable in any civilised society, and I find it deeply depressing that in Scotland today sectarian divisions continue in some local communities, frequently manifesting themselves in so-called sectarian banter or in abuse, intimidation and harassment that can, at the extreme end of the spectrum, develop into violence.
As recently as April this year, sectarian tensions once again emerged at the Glasgow cup final between the Celtic and Rangers under-17 youth teams. The match should have provided an opportunity, first and foremost, for the young players to display their skills. Although that should have been the story that dominated the headlines next day, the occasion was virtually hijacked by both teams’ supporters, who for the duration of the match taunted and derided each other with derogatory comments and songs.
It is therefore little wonder that campaigners such as Nil by Mouth have argued that the Scottish Government and the football authorities are not doing enough to combat sectarianism. However, it is vital that, in seeking to tackle the problem, we do not narrowly restrict the focus to football alone but seek to adopt a holistic and consensus-driven approach.
Moreover, it is neither desirable nor possible to arrest our way out of this problem, which seems to be the intent behind the deeply flawed Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. This fundamentally bad and poorly drafted legislation constituted a knee-jerk response to the something-must-be-done clamour, and it paved the way for the introduction of new criminal offences by statutory instrument without full and detailed parliamentary scrutiny and despite a distinct lack of consensus among key stakeholders.
Does the member think that legislation was or can be part of the answer or that it must be purely about education?
I will come to that precise point.
In 2011, that act was railroaded through by the SNP majority Government in the face of opposition from Scottish Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who all voted against it. Those Opposition parties were not alone in their criticisms of the 2012 act. In 2013, Sheriff Richard Davidson said that it was
“horribly drafted”
and that
“Somehow the word mince comes to mind.”
His voice is only one of those in the legal profession who have spoken out against it.
Where clarity was sought, the act introduced vague, catch-all offences that some argue are very much at odds with civil liberties. In other words, the SNP response to the deeply complex issue was to introduce legislation that has served only to create confusion. Consequently—to answer Mr Mason’s point—that legislation should be repealed now in view of the fact that existing laws that do not vilify certain sections of society could easily be used to greater effect. For that reason, the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the motion and against the amendment.
The legislation, which was the SNP’s top-down response, is self-evidently not the answer to the problem. If Scotland’s sectarianism is to be eliminated, the root causes must be tackled.
The Morrow report confirms the inherent complexities of sectarianism where it exists in Scotland. It also stresses that the impact of sectarianism varies from community to community and that it is not a one-size-fits-all issue. In particular, it highlights the importance of community-led activity as the way to overcome sectarianism.
I very much welcome that approach, having been fortunate enough to see at first hand when I visited the Machan Trust’s project in Larkhall how such activity can make a transformative difference in the lives of young people. That project, which seeks to tackle sectarianism, ran successfully in bringing children and young adults of all religions and none together to participate in collaborative activities. Furthermore, YouthLink Scotland has seen proven success by addressing the issue through youth work with its action on sectarianism web portal.
Those initiatives endeavour to work with a local community where sectarian issues exist in order to educate rather than punish. As such, they are surely an example of the best way to overcome the sectarian divide.
We now move to the open debate. Speeches should be four minutes, please. Time is fairly tight.
15:03
We can all agree that we have a problem and that we need to talk about it. The key in this debate, inside or outside the chamber, is that sectarianism needs to be talked about, but it has to stop being aired through a megaphone.
It would be great if there were a scapegoat or we could find somebody who is responsible for the present level of sectarianism in Scotland, because that would mean that we could get rid of the problem in an instant. Let us be clear: it is not going to work like that. It never does.
We can all agree that this is about more than legislation; we need a cultural change that could be led from the Parliament. It is important to realise that we all in Parliament have a responsibility when it comes to the tone that we use when we talk about sectarianism.
Elaine Murray’s motion makes two important points, which I would like to address. First, it talks about a failure of our committees to address the report that was published by the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. The Labour Party’s motion then asks us to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
Let me deal with the second part of the motion first. I cannot be the Labour Party’s scapegoat today; I was not yet an MSP when the bill came to Parliament. However, as a member of the Justice Committee, I was aware that section 11 of act states that the Scottish Ministers are required to report to Parliament. The minister has repeated what we already knew: the Justice Committee’s members are aware that the report will cover two full football seasons and the evaluation report will be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the end of the previous football season. In March, the committee members heard the minister rule out an early review of the act. Christine Grahame, the committee’s convener is right: we were all there when that happened. Nothing has changed since.
I also happen to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. On the first part of the motion about a failure of our committee system to address the report that was published by the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland—
Can I just make a point of information about that?
First, let me read out to Elaine Murray a letter dated 1 April from our convener Margaret McCulloch, to Dr Morrow. The letter is important because it says what our committee will do. It says:
“Dear Dr Morrow
Thank you again for your attendance with Dr Rosie at our 20 February meeting. Following the Scottish Government’s response to your initial findings and, given the extension of the life of the Advisory Group, we have agreed to await further findings before taking a decision on carrying out more in-depth work.”
My motion does not comment on the failure of any committee; rather, it comments on the fact that Parliament has not discussed the report. That is the important point.
The motion refers to scrutiny by a committee. It may be that the motion is not drafted properly, so perhaps Elaine Murray will welcome the Scottish Government’s input and its amendment. There has been no failure from the Equal Opportunities Committee’s convener, but there has been a proportionate and cross-party approach to helping to tackle sectarianism.
I remember that, when we were taking evidence, in answer to Siobhan McMahon, Dr Morrow stated:
“As we have already said, the issue cannot be addressed as a party-political issue. If it is addressed in that way, as I know from my experience, it becomes extremely difficult to have a serious conversation about it.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 20 February 2014; c 1826.]
We need a cultural change—one that can be led from this Government and this Parliament through the tone of our debates in the chamber and at committee.
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab) rose—
Have you finished your speech?
Did I have four minutes?
Yes. You have finished your speech.
15:07
The forthcoming old firm match has attracted the media’s attention even though it is three months away. Although it has been nearly three years since they last met, there is understandable excitement. Supporters hope that Scottish football will get a much needed competitive boost, and that there will be greater maturity among the small sections who are an embarrassment to their clubs and who project an image that should no longer have any place in Scotland.
There is widespread feeling that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 exacerbates the problem. That act should be repealed.
When we talk about challenging sectarianism, the old firm and other sporting manifestations are only part of the story and, in many ways, they are subsidiary to the wider task of challenging sectarianism in society through prevention and education. It is that wider task that we need to speak about today.
Tackling sectarianism has and will continue to be a priority for the Scottish Labour Party. When we were in power, we had an action plan and we pursued an education strategy that was designed to tackle sectarianism. By contrast, the SNP Government pushed through a controversial law, despite widespread opposition and doubts about its effectiveness. Those doubts have been borne out by subsequent events.
The SNP also set up an advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland, but although Dr Morrow’s report was published more than a year ago, it still awaits proper consideration and debate. The supposedly concerned Scottish Government has published a response but, significantly, the response fails to take on board the recommendations about actions that are its responsibility.
The Morrow report specifically called on the Scottish Government to use powers to engage people in discussion of sectarianism and to ensure that instances of sectarianism are recognised as such. It said that the Scottish Government should provide financial support for community activity and education that can address sectarianism at grass-roots level, with the issue being part of public funding for community work, education and youth work, yet community projects that have been set up still do not know what will happen when their funding comes to an end next year.
Other recommendations included evaluation of existing community-based projects to see what works, and encouraging schools to create anti-sectarianism partnerships. Dr Morrow claimed that many senior and influential people across Scotland have failed to show the leadership that is needed to confront the problem.
Will John Pentland give way?
I am sorry, but the member is in his last 25 seconds.
Dr Morrow is rightly concerned that his report’s recommendations for actions are not being implemented.
The question is whether ministers oppose wider action to tackle sectarianism or whether they have just been too busy securing a no vote for separation while allowing Dr Morrow’s report to gather dust. Either way, it is shameful. The recommendations deserve better attention from the Scottish Government. Facing up to sectarianism and giving it the attention that it deserves is long overdue. Scottish Labour will do that, and in looking to become the next Scottish Government we promise a renewed focus and effective action on sectarianism.
15:11
What an utterly depressing speech from John Pentland when the thrust of the report is that we should not politicise sectarianism. Nobody in Parliament supports sectarianism, but to speak in such a manner almost lays to rest, albeit temporarily, any hope of a broad church discussing the issue in the Parliament in a grown-up and mature way.
I say to Elaine Murray that the thrust of her motion is the repeal of an act of Parliament. She is the one who focused on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. Otherwise, it would not have been raised by other members, including Margaret Mitchell. It is tagged on to the motion as if it is part of the report, which it is not. The member herself admits that the report says, in the executive summary, at paragraph 21:
“We have not addressed any issues specifically relating to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. We are aware that a review of the Act is to be undertaken at the end of this football season and a report submitted to Parliament.”
Will Christine Grahame give way?
Let me go through some points first.
I will deal first with the point about the Justice Committee. As Elaine Murray is well aware, the committee had an opportunity to discuss the matter at its meeting on 4 March. The member asked two questions and she was apparently satisfied with the answers. I always allow members to ask additional questions. I am looking at the minutes of that meeting, as a decision was taken in private in relation to the evidence that we had heard and the correspondence. The minutes, which are public, state that the committee considered next steps in private during a work programme discussion later the same day and the decision was
“to consider the next research document on Charges reported under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 once published in June 2014”.
That research was circulated to members when it was published in June and no member requested any further action from the committee on it, so it is a bit rich for Elaine Murray to come to the chamber with her motion today.
We should remember that the Justice Committee is a committee of the Parliament; we are the Parliament, as well. Elaine Murray’s motion includes a reference to the committee, saying that we have not looked at the matter in depth. She had an opportunity to bring it up in discussions on our work programme but she did not do that.
Why are we having this debate today? I cannot think of a good reason. There is a good reason to talk about the report, but the way to talk about such a report is to have a debate without a motion. We have done that before. That would have allowed the Parliament to discuss a sensitive, complex and diverse issue across the chamber in a responsible fashion, without bringing in party political points right, left and centre that do no favours to people who are confronting sectarianism in all its forms, be it on football pitches, on the streets, in work or wherever.
This debate does the Parliament no service. It makes me so angry that the Labour Party, which I used to have some regard for—to be frank, I have lost all regard for it—looks for cheap party-political tricks on the back of anything it can find. That is a great shame, because the Morrow report makes it plain that
“there is a need for leadership”
on this difficult issue. Labour is not showing one little wisp of leadership today. Instead, I think that we are looking at diversionary tactics from a party that does not know which way to look, is busy with an internal argument and is looking for something else to hit the front page of the Daily Record.
15:15
Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to highlight the work of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland.
Scotland has wrestled with sectarianism for decades, and debate has too often been suppressed or sensationalised and reduced to simplistic understandings and stereotypes. The advisory group’s initial contribution, in the report that it published in December 2013, moved matters on significantly.
I have met Dr Morrow and his team regularly since the group was established in 2012. On his appointment, Dr Morrow said that
“The advisory group will work hard to ensure that our advice is rooted in real evidence and practical experience.”
Those expectations have been realised. I have been greatly impressed by the group’s measured and thoughtful approach over the past two years.
The group has given people a voice and it has provided people with opportunities to speak frankly and maturely about their experiences. It has had considerable success in engaging parties across civic Scotland in awkward conversations that some people would rather avoid. In considering personal, organisational and community responsibility, it has challenged people to confront issues that are frequently—but wrongly—deemed to be irrelevant or simply too difficult.
In its report, the group examined the complexities and nuances of sectarianism and, crucially, established the foundations for change through initiatives that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding. Local authorities, churches, football clubs, schools, the media, community organisations and more were presented with practical solutions. Grass-roots solutions that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding will foster a long-overdue culture of leadership and partnership working.
The group identified local authorities as agents of social change, which must
“embrace the issue of tackling sectarianism with the conviction and confidence with which they have approached other equality issues”.
Sectarianism is linked to many other social challenges with which local authorities are involved. It impacts on community cohesion, safety, diversity and wellbeing. I am therefore surprised that so few local authorities have hard-wired consideration of the problem into their planning processes. There has been a broad failure to establish a whole-council approach. I hope that COSLA and councillors have taken on board the group’s recommendations and that the stark divergence in councils’ efforts across the country will be eradicated.
Attitudes to equality issues, including racism and homophobia, have been transformed in recent decades. Sectarianism, and the marginalisation and resentment that it causes, must be deemed to be just as shameful. That will take time. The identification of progress points for each of the organisations and institutions that are mentioned in the report would assist in the recognition of improvements, as the body of evidence grows.
Scottish Liberal Democrats opposed the SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which was emergency legislation. We were the only party to do so during the bill’s rushed passage through Parliament. It was a flawed headline-grabbing response that ignored the overwhelming concerns of civic Scotland. It still risks doing more harm than good.
However, it is important to recognise that the advisory group is engaged in a much broader discussion about how best to bring communities and key stakeholders together. It presents a much wider range of interventions than those that are possible or established through legislation. Of course the 2012 act should be monitored and its effectiveness thoroughly evaluated, but Labour’s decision to connect the two issues in its motion is neither appropriate nor helpful. For that reason, we will support the Government’s amendment.
As the advisory group noted in its report:
“we are at the beginning of a journey to eradicate sectarianism in Scotland.”
I commend the Scottish Government’s commitment to the advisory group and look forward to further substantial impartial expert advice.
15:20
I thank Alison McInnes for her contribution, which was very thoughtful and got to the nub of what is happening.
I have to repeat what Christine Grahame said about the motion and what it looks at. The title of the motion is “Tackling sectarianism” but all we heard from the Labour members was about repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. They said nothing at all about the work that is being done in communities. It is deeply worrying that the Labour Party has concentrated on that and not on the work that is being carried out in communities.
John Pentland touched on a possible reason for that. I will repeat it for the benefit of Labour members. Perhaps it was something to do with the report in the Daily Record, which said that Labour pledges to scrap the 2012 act if it is elected in 2016. I will leave that there because I do not want to continue with that theme. There is much more to the issue that we should look at.
I want to concentrate on the good work that is being carried out in communities, as Margaret Mitchell and Alison McInnes mentioned, and which is provided and funded by the Scottish Government. I have only a small list because I do not have time to read out the full list. I have picked out the organisations that are in or near my constituency.
Glasgow Women’s Library explores women’s experience and how sectarianism affects women, which is a big issue when we consider domestic violence. It received £143,928 of Scottish Government funding. In Cahootz and Parent Network Scotland provide anti-sectarian workshops for parents and received £69,530 in funding. The sense over sectarianism partnership, which looks at education and community engagement in greater Glasgow, received £387,597 from the Scottish Government. Cambridge University Technical Services Limited provides the “I See! Life Skills for a Changing Scotland” course in Glasgow, Falkirk, Edinburgh, Stirling and Inverclyde, and it received £100,000 funding from the Scottish Government. The Conforti Institute anti-sectarianism project received £178,070 for encouraging community dialogue against sectarianism and for working on relationships within churches and communities. Surely those projects are what we should be looking at. They are the way to tackle sectarianism.
Engender also looks at women’s experience and works through the arts and dialogue to tackle sectarianism.
Will Sandra White take an intervention?
The member is in her final minute.
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
We have seen the issues that arise when football matches are on, and domestic violence against women has to be looked at in that context.
Another community engagement project, DEAFinitely Together, received £98,170 in funding and there are a lot more such activities. Members should look at such projects in their constituencies and throughout Scotland. They are where we will tackle the problems of sectarianism. As John Mason said, there is a place for legislation and education; the two are not mutually exclusive. I welcome the amendment in the minister’s name because Labour’s motion does not tackle anything but its own inadequacies.
15:23
Presiding Officer, as you know, a few weeks ago I had the great privilege of taking part in a visit to the Commonwealth war graves in the Ypres salient in Flanders as part of the first world war commemoration event that was organised by the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. For those who do not know, BIPA is a body of parliamentarians from all the jurisdictions in the British isles that has the aim of developing and progressing the peace process in Ireland.
As well as visiting the Scottish and Welsh war memorials, we visited a number of cemeteries and the famous Menin Gate. For me, the most poignant event was the visit to the Island of Ireland peace park in Messines, which was the place chosen by the Irish Government to permanently remember those from all parts of Ireland who gave their lives in the so-called great war.
As part of the ceremony, the peace pledge that adorns a plinth in the park was read out. It states:
“We repudiate and denounce violence, aggression, intimidation, threats and unfriendly behaviour ... As Protestants and Catholics we apologise for the terrible deeds we have done to each other and ask forgiveness”.
It goes on to implore all people
“to help build a peaceful and tolerant society”
and to
“remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic soldiers when they served together in these trenches.”
As I stood in that now tranquil place, which once resounded with the noise of gunfire and bombs I could not help but think that, although the memorial was specific to Irish soldiers, its sentiments could equally reflect the situation in Scotland and that such words are as relevant here as they are on our neighbouring island.
So how regrettable it is that where the Irish look to achieve respect and reconciliation through high-minded ambition, unfortunately in this place we have had to deal with the knee-jerk legislation of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, which undermines the very prospect of such an objective being achieved in Scotland. That legislation has metaphorically driven people into the trenches and Scotland has had to deal with that hatred.
Three years on from the introduction of the most illiberal, divisive and retrograde legislation ever brought before the Parliament, the Government, which introduced it in the face of almost unanimous opposition, refuses to concede that it got it wrong. Even after its own advisory group produced such a positive and progressive blueprint for the development of anti-sectarian policies in Scotland, the Scottish Government still cannot bring itself even to debate this subject adequately in the chamber. We are holding the debate today because it was three years ago that we passed the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. Christine Grahame says that we are just using this as an excuse, but the debate is a commemoration as well. We are reminding people that, in spite of unanimous cross-party opposition, this Government polarised Parliament and played politics with this issue. We will not take any lectures from the SNP on the debates that we bring to the chamber.
The Morrow report is undoubtedly one of the most important documents ever produced on sectarianism and the Government is to be commended for initiating it. However, where is the leadership that the report calls for? What a pity it is that the Government abdicates responsibility for taking forward the Morrow report’s recommendations and shies away from confronting the problem.
It is vital that the Government starts to show that it recognises that sectarianism is not, as the advisory group points out, the same as anti-Catholicism or anti-lrishness. The Government still shows no sign that it appreciates or understands that its attitude to sectarianism is itself part of the problem.
15:28
Regrettably, the scourge of sectarianism remains with us. I, for one, certainly welcome the thoughtful contribution that the advisory group made last year. I note its conclusion in section 6.2, that
“sectarianism continues to be an active element in Scottish life,”
which was coupled with its acknowledgement that many participants in the study concluded that the
“immediate impact of sectarianism in Scotland had lessened considerably and measurably over the past decades.”
When Duncan Morrow gave evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee, he said:
“We wanted to find some more effective ways of dealing with what is probably a long-term question, rather than an acute one, in Scotland”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 20 February 2014; c 1815.]
I agree with that conclusion. Economic discrimination may have lessened and we are fortunate that we now have legislation to protect human rights, deal with discrimination, address inequality and criminalise hate crime, so I very much agree with the working party’s conclusion that additional legislation is not needed at this time.
I also agree with the working party’s view that there are no quick fixes or easy answers to sectarianism. Of course, the point that the vast majority of funding to tackle sectarianism comes from public funds is well made. Although I acknowledge the substantial contribution that is made by organisations such as Nil by Mouth, we should all recognise that much more could be done by organisations in the private sector, such as football clubs and football associations, which must lead by example. While struggles for control of boards go on and, indeed, some football clubs struggle for their financial existence, it would be all too easy to overlook the important role that football has in eradicating sectarianism.
Taking a lead in opposing sectarian behaviour remains a key. In particular, we must recognise that what some people call banter has no place in modern Scotland. Traditions should be encouraged only if they have value.
There are positives. Despite funding cuts from Westminster, the Scottish Government will invest £3 million till March 2015 in tackling the problem. I welcome that. I also appreciate the point that the funding needs to be concentrated on places where it can be most effective. We must recognise that sectarianism can be localised while recognising the benefits of a Scotland-wide approach such as the YouthLink Scotland action on sectarianism web portal.
Changing young people’s attitudes must be a priority for the future. It is clearly important for Education Scotland to ensure that any anti-sectarianism work is undertaken in line with the curriculum for excellence. Getting it right for every child is crucial. I also welcome attempts to promote equality in the classroom and build good citizens for the future, which helps to break the self-perpetuating nature of sectarianism.
I also welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to gathering evidence to build for the future. I listened carefully to the comments that the minister made on that in her opening speech. We definitely need more information on communities’ experience and attitudes. I do not know what impact analysis of the demography of the 2011 census will reveal, but I await it with interest.
What about marches and parades? Do they cause fear, alarm and public disorder, or are they simply families enjoying a day out as some suggest? At a meeting of the Justice Committee on 4 March, which was referred to earlier, I inquired what the position was in relation to research that the University of Stirling is conducting into the effects of parades and marches. The Government official at the committee said that a report was expected by summer 2014. I have not been able to access the report and I do not know whether the minister has any update on it in her closing speech.
On the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, we are now three months after the review period ended and approximately nine months away from August 2015, which is the deadline for laying a report before the Parliament. Like others, I await the evaluation report with interest, but I do not want to prejudge it. I do not know what the comments will be and I say with respect to the Labour Party and, indeed, the Conservatives that we should wait and see. It is not long grass; it is careful consideration. Perhaps the report will be laid before the Parliament earlier—let us hope so.
I accept that the act has become a party-political football, but we should remind ourselves again of what Duncan Morrow said, which is that sectarianism cannot be addressed as a party-political issue.
15:32
I have one point of agreement with Christine Grahame, which is that there is a tension at the heart of the Labour motion. On the one hand, it calls for more action from the Scottish Government to tackle sectarianism and implement the Morrow report but, on the other, it calls for repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
I have always objected to the way that some politicians have sought to portray the broader issue of sectarianism as Scotland’s shame. Perhaps it has just been a part of my life experience growing up on the east coast of Scotland, but I do not share the view that sectarianism is endemic across the whole of Scottish society. Many people I know resent us all being tarred with the same brush. That is not to say that sectarianism is not a problem in some communities in Scotland or in some situations, but it is the problem of a small minority and we should stop damning the great majority by association. Therefore, any measures to tackle sectarianism should be targeted and proportionate.
That brings me on to the 2012 act. If ever there were an illiberal, unnecessary and nonsensical piece of legislation, that was it. Throughout the passage of the act, the Scottish Conservatives opposed it, and our view has not changed. In that respect, I am happy to agree with the wording of the Labour motion, which calls for its repeal.
The act is illiberal and unworkable. It is illiberal because, in essence, it criminalises people’s opinions. As it happens, I believe that, in general, people should be nicer to one another. They should not say to one another things that cause offence. However, that does not mean that people who break those rules should necessarily be criminalised. Religiously motivated discrimination should be against the law, but it is not the business of Government to criminalise private thoughts and prejudices. In the words of Queen Elizabeth I, we should not make windows into men’s souls.
It is simply nonsense to prosecute people just for singing songs that other people might find offensive, particularly when the reasonableness of that offence need not necessarily be in question. We end up with the ludicrous situation in which people sitting in their homes watching a football match on television and hearing songs being sung by fans in a stadium that is nowhere near them can telephone the police to make a complaint that they have been offended, which falls under the act.
If the act were simply illiberal, it would not be that different from a lot of other acts that have been passed by the Parliament. However, its foolishness is compounded by the fact that it is also confused. When the bill was going through Parliament, my colleague John Lamont questioned the minister as to whether singing our national anthem, “God Save the Queen”, could be an offence, to which she had to reply that it would depend on the circumstances. She went on to say that a fan of Celtic Football Club making the sign of the cross could also be deemed to be offensive and fall under the ambit of the act depending on the circumstances.
It is a basic principle of law that it should be certain, so that those who might be at risk of breaking it are aware in advance of the consequences of their actions. This legislation fails that basic test. Last year, the High Court of Justiciary considered the case of Joseph Cairns, a Celtic fan who had attended a match against Ross County in Dingwall and was filmed by police officers when he was singing two Celtic songs, neither of which I have any direct familiarity with but which I believe were “The Roll of Honour” and “The Boys of the Old Brigade”. That led to him being prosecuted under the act. However, it was a victimless crime. No one was offended by his singing and no one was incited to public disorder. Also, Mr Cairns was one of several thousand Celtic fans who were also singing those songs, yet he was singled out for attention. Under no definition of the term is that justice.
In a modern, free, liberal and democratic society, we should not be criminalising speech or opinions and the Parliament should not be passing confused legislation. This is a bad law and it should be repealed.
15:37
I welcome the contributions that members have made to the debate, although I am surprised not to have heard more positive suggestions about other work that could be done. I reiterate that we will listen to any good suggestions from wherever they emanate. It is a shame that we have not really heard any such suggestions.
I said at the outset that the Scottish Government has been and continues to be fully committed to tackling sectarianism. Depressingly, however, a number of members this afternoon—including Margaret Mitchell and Murdo Fraser—seem to want to rerun the debate that we had on what became the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
That act was introduced for a reason—to tackle sectarian and other unacceptable behaviour around football and to address unacceptable religious and other threats, whether posted on the internet or sent through the post. It did not come out of a vacuum.
Some members—Margaret Mitchell, for example—called for the 2012 act’s immediate repeal. Really? Would that be despite the fact that it is being reviewed, following the correct parliamentary process, and that that review is in its final stages? What a bizarre suggestion. We should not be pre-empting the review’s findings.
Does the minister not accept and realise that the act is an unwelcome distraction that is taking up resources when existing law would do the job much better and we could focus on community-based approaches?
The statistics suggest that the act is working. I suggest that the member wait until the review is completed before coming to a conclusion.
As the debate has demonstrated, it is utterly wrong to see the act as the start, middle and end of the work that the Scottish Government has done to tackle the issue. I re-emphasise that there has been an investment of a record £9 million over the past three years—and a further £3 million in the 2015-16 financial year—to do exactly what members called for, including John Pentland, who clearly did not listen to a single word of my opening speech. That investment has allowed us to take a radical new approach to tackling the issue—an approach that is starting to make the progress that we all want.
Our 44 community-based projects continue to get underneath the issue in communities across Scotland and to tailor solutions to meet the specific needs that are identified. Our research programme is helping us to build the most holistic understanding of the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland that we have ever had.
The close and very positive working relationship that we and a number of members have had with the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland is testament to the fact that we can most effectively address sectarianism by working together. I am grateful to Alison McInnes for discussing that aspect in some detail. The importance of working together seems to have bypassed a number of members in the chamber.
I emphasise that it is most important that the work that we have delivered in the past three years has been designed specifically to move us from a position in which we had very poor-quality data, information and evidence on the nature and extent of sectarianism in modern Scotland to a situation in which we can make informed policy decisions based on expert advice and comprehensive evidence.
We have commissioned a wide range of academic research and will bring it together with real lived experiences through evidence gathering from the funded projects and through specific initiatives—such as the one that the Scottish storytelling centre is delivering—that will allow the voices of those who experience the everyday reality of sectarianism to be heard.
I have some depressing news for Murdo Fraser: the problem is not confined to Glasgow and west central Scotland.
We have set ourselves on a path to develop the best and most robust evidence base on sectarianism in modern Scotland that we have ever had, and we will deliver on that aim. The advisory group’s final report will play a central role in focusing our future approach to tackling sectarianism and continuing to build our evidence base.
We have worked with the advisory group and the Voluntary Action Fund—the grant managers for the work—on the development and delivery of an effective evaluation tool that will allow us to robustly assess the impact of the projects and to ensure that future decisions are informed by the evidence that is gathered and that funding is focused on areas in which it will have the greatest impact.
We all welcome the projects. When I was in the minister’s position, one of my concerns was that we did not make decisions quickly enough to prevent redundancy notices from going out on successful projects. I urge her to ensure that funding decisions are made in December rather than January, by which time redundancy notices will have gone out to the excellent projects that we all support.
I am conscious of the pressures on all voluntary sector organisations when it comes to rolling over Government funding. As Dr Simpson may be aware, we cannot make decisions on the next three years, as we have only one year of funding coming up. That is a challenge.
The impact and assessment of all projects will continue until March 2015. All the information that is collected will help us to build on the current evidence base on sectarianism in Scotland. The project work will begin to highlight the interventions that work—and in some cases do not work—in enabling communities to tackle sectarianism as they experience it.
I for one am excited by the agenda’s positive direction and the fact that, by working together, we can tackle sectarianism once and for all. As we move into 2015, we will be dealing with two huge pieces of work on the issue: the final report of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism and the review for which the 2012 act provided. Believe you me—we will deal with this next year.
15:43
Murdo Fraser mentioned that he rejects the notion of sectarianism as a secret or hidden shame across Scotland. It is in that context that Scottish Labour will continue to bring the subject to the chamber and to the Parliament’s committees. For far too long, sectarianism has been a hidden and secret shame that has affected the lives of people throughout Scotland.
Sandra White either misheard Elaine Murray’s speech or misrepresented elements of it. Labour members acknowledge the hard work that is being done by those who contribute to partnership working and influence the cultures that affect our country.
For all the fine words and good intentions, today’s debate has demonstrated clearly that Scotland has a problem at the very heart of many of our communities. Through its legislation, the Government characterises sectarianism as a problem that is largely related to football and encouraged by a few groups. It has perpetuated the view that sectarianism is a scourge particularly in the west of Scotland that is fuelled by working-class men.
We have heard evidence of that from the Conservative Party’s front bench this afternoon. That misunderstanding of the situation needs to be met head on. Little acknowledgement has been made of those who exercise sectarian influences in employment, the conduct of day-to-day commerce, our places of education, our social clubs and pubs and the housing estates in which our children are brought up, not to mention the foul expressions that some hear emanating from the expensive seats in hospitality boxes across the country on match days.
That failing and ministers’ flawed understanding of the initial issues that we are grappling with led to a knee-jerk declaration about a match of shame—a match in which there were few arrests in a crowd of many thousands of fans—followed by a summit meeting and a rush to legislate to provide the nation with an ultimate response. That did not meet the mark.
That was three years ago, in the face of pleas from inside the Parliament and from communities for the wider issues of research, education and engagement with the voluntary sector, churches and football supporters to deal with the source of sectarianism—a hatred for our fellow citizens—to be addressed. Those are the very elements that are referred to in the advisory group report, which we welcome and which we support energetically.
A minority of Scots have developed a particular passion to hate, whether on the grounds of gender, colour, race, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. Now, in our political lives, we have developed a commentary enabling concepts of unionism and nationalism to attract pejorative values. We endure members of our community who indulge their ability to target, despise and abuse their fellow human beings by all means open to them, which include violence, utterances, texts, emails, social media and the media generally.
As a result, we now have a national unit and uniformed police bearing the emblem “Anti-Sectarian Initiative” on their tabards. What must the wider world think of us when we are involved in world football?
The member has mentioned football on a number of occasions. What is his view on the fines that the Union of European Football Associations—UEFA—has handed down to clubs for what it considers to be offensive songs sung by their fans?
I would welcome all football authorities taking direct responsibility for the behaviour of fans in that environment.
The failure at the heart of the Government lies in the fact that it sought to legislate and criminalise without taking the difficult decisions and the steps that its advisory group members suggested, which could have been actively pursued in the past three years. Ministers need to be honest about the scale of the task ahead, which the minister acknowledged to an extent. The Government must engage with Opposition parties, anti-sectarian charities, educators and the parts of wider civic Scotland that deal with hate crime more generally. We need to work together to move forward and leave this prejudice behind.
The Morrow report properly identifies leadership and research as major elements for future strategies. I invite the minister to ensure that the Government provides visible leadership and a focus on sectarianism on a month-by-month basis.
I am a bit perplexed about where the member is going when he talks about leadership. The minister was clear that more than £9 million has been provided for 44 projects. Just last week, I hosted a reception for the Mark Scott leadership for life award, which is receiving £600,000 over three years from the Government. Can the member not acknowledge that and see that we are providing the leadership and the finances?
I am happy to acknowledge the finances that have been given, but it took the Labour Party to bring the debate to the chamber. I would have liked the minister to lead on the issue from the Government front benches.
As Alison McInnes said, the Scottish Government should play its part in demanding leadership from COSLA, the football authorities and all elements of Scottish civic society in recognising the way forward.
I invite the minister to give assurances in public that she is prepared to consider repealing the legislation that is referred to in the motion when evidence is provided of the negative impact that has been delivered across Scottish football and of the impact on supporters.
I invite the minister to revisit earlier proposals to ensure that football authorities and Scottish clubs in particular play their full part in education and the delivery of true cultural changes in their grounds and are made accountable for the behaviour of those supporters—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I find it difficult to finish my speech with the continued sniping from the Government front bench. If the minister wants to ask me something, she merely needs to do so. I have taken interventions up to now.
Will the member give way?
Would Graeme Pearson like to take an intervention from the minister?
I would be delighted.
Can I take it from what the member says that he thinks that the Government should legislate to force football clubs and football authorities to do such things?
I think that the Government should not take responsibility for the duties and responsibilities of the football authorities and should ensure that those authorities play their full part.
Much as I welcome the report, I also welcome the positive contribution that many people have made to the way forward on the issue. I hope that the Government will redouble its efforts to provide visible leadership and show us the way forward.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Living Wage