Expert Group on the Leveson Report in Scotland
First, I thank the expert group chaired by Lord McCluskey for its swift work, its clearly drafted report and its interesting recommendations. The report was published only on Friday afternoon and, in the past 24 hours, there have been further major developments at Westminster. We now want to work towards not simply a Scottish Government response to these matters but one that continues the involvement of other parties in the Parliament.
Does the cabinet secretary recall that Lord Leveson was asked to conduct his inquiry because of the widespread public revulsion at the reprehensible actions of some journalists and some newspapers and that, although there is a legitimate debate about what should replace the current system of self-regulation, we can all agree that a free press and the need for robust investigative journalism must be balanced with the needs of vulnerable people and other members of the public who have found themselves victims of inexcusable press behaviour?
I agree with those points. The report that Lord Justice Leveson produced was indeed a balanced report that had to balance the interests of many different areas. The importance of victims must never be forgotten. We were appalled by the evidence that we saw, but we must remember that it did not involve all journalists or all publications.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that further clarification.
I strongly believe in a free press. I agree with the recommendations by Lord Justice Leveson that there should be an independent self-regulatory system, but we need to have checks and balances in that system. That is why we must examine what the implications of the royal charter are, because some of the issues to do with incentives and arbitration that are important to the Leveson recommendations must be considered in the context of Scots law. I have had agreement from Maria Miller and the Advocate General for Scotland that once the UK Government achieved an agreed position, we could examine what the implications are, in particular for Scots law.
With the agreement at Westminster, we do not want Scotland to be left behind on the matter of press regulation. What was greatly disappointing about the McCluskey report that was published on Friday was the fact that the expert group did not consider to any great extent the carrots and sticks—the incentives—that might be used in Scots law. The advisers recommended 10 possible incentives. As time is short, is the cabinet secretary considering a public consultation so that we can gather views from across Scotland about whether those carrots and sticks are appropriate for Scotland?
The member is correct to identify that the advisers provided some advice or information in that area. I point out that the terms of reference for the expert group said that any developments in press regulation elsewhere in the UK that arose from the Leveson inquiry should be considered. However, the member is correct to identify that the exemplary charges and exemplary damages do not apply in Scotland. That is why we must look at other areas.
Leveson wrote that he did not want to recommend one more last-chance saloon for the press. McCluskey went further by suggesting that if the press did not come forward with a regulatory body that sought recognition, legislation should establish one instead. What are the Scottish Government’s views on the actions that will become necessary if the industry does not come forward with a body seeking formal recognition, and on which legislature will take responsibility?
The point for the here and now, as we have heard from other members, is that we should look for a consensus to ensure that a self-regulatory system is established, rather than resorting to any other means.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that an appropriate committee of the Scottish Parliament should take evidence on the proposed royal charter and its implications for Scotland?
Clearly, we are quite limited by the timescale. Indeed, the Prime Minister indicated that he would want to take a royal charter to the Privy Council in May. However, if Clare Adamson’s view—I think that Patrick Harvie indicated this as well—is that we need an opportunity to examine the proposed royal charter, then I think that it would be preferable if the appropriate committee could hold some evidence sessions, however pressured the timescale might be, so that we can look at what checks and balances can be achieved using Scots law and at the implications of the royal charter.
Unauthorised Protests (Police Response)
Decisions on operational policing are clearly a matter for the chief constable, but we have complete faith in our police officers to take necessary and appropriate action to tackle those who break the law. There is a procedure in place, which was introduced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration in 2006, that requires an application for permission to march to be submitted to the local authority no later than 28 days before any event. That is intended to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to protect the interests both of those who wish to march and of members of the public who might be caught up in an unplanned event.
I had a meeting yesterday with a chief superintendent in Glasgow about the issues that were raised on Saturday. However, does the cabinet secretary recall that, at justice questions last week, I raised the concerns that have been expressed by lawyers, academics and football fans that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 and the policing of it are failing to tackle the problem of sectarianism in Scotland and are, in fact, raising tensions and being counterproductive? In response to the harassment, victimisation and disproportionate actions of the police in pursuing the 2012 act, a protest was held on Saturday by Celtic fans. Sadly, it has now been widely alleged not only by fans but by Queen’s counsel and independent legal advisers who attended on Saturday that the event was met with the very harassment, victimisation and disproportionate actions from the police that the fans were protesting against in the first place.
Can we have a question, Mr McMahon?
The proposed procession may well have been outwith the regulations outlined by the cabinet secretary, but the complaints that have emanated from the actions of the police in dealing with the procession should shock and alarm the chamber. Will the minister therefore agree to hold an independent investigation into the police’s handling of the event, both to learn lessons from it and to try to reduce the increasing tensions across Scotland between fans and the police as a result of the police’s implementation of the 2012 act?
Michael McMahon did the right thing by seeking to speak to a senior police officer in Strathclyde. If he still has concerns, he should raise them with Campbell Corrigan, the chief constable, and if he is not satisfied by that, he can raise them with the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland or, when it moves, the police investigations and review commissioner.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on using the same deflection that the police used yesterday with me. The protest was held because of concerns over the implementation of the act by the police inside and outside football grounds, which has been deemed unfair and disproportionate.
Do you have a question, Mr McMahon?
I met Celtic supporters last night who are asking for an inquiry into what happened on Saturday, so that everyone can be satisfied that the 2012 act is not being administered in the way that people believe it to be. It is raising tensions and concerns. If we want to tackle the problem, we have to address the problem effectively.
I repeat that the events on Saturday were not to do with the 2012 act, apart from the fact that some wished to demonstrate against it. They are entitled to do that, but they are required by the legislation that was introduced by the Labour-Liberal Administration to put in an application to Glasgow City Council—or any other council that is asked to host such a march—at least 28 days beforehand and let the council decide. If they do not do that, we have difficulties. An SDL demonstration was also anticipated on Saturday to commemorate the death of young Kriss Donald, which caused great grief to his family. It is perfectly appropriate that elected representatives in Glasgow or elsewhere should be able to decide whether a march is fit and appropriate. If it is fit and appropriate for members of the green brigade to march, they will be allowed to do so, but they will follow the directions and strictures laid down by Glasgow City Council and adhere to the rules and laws that will be enforced and implemented by the police and which, I remind Mr McMahon, were brought in by his party as part of the Liberal and Labour Administration in 2006. It was the right decision then and it is the right decision today.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that many of my constituents want a stronger level of policing around football matches? They are fed up with their driveways being obstructed, with alcohol being drunk in the streets and with people urinating in public.
The overwhelming majority of football fans are law abiding and well behaved, and they enjoy the game, behave themselves and do not cause any inconvenience. A minority cause considerable difficulties, and John Mason makes a good point in drawing attention to them. However, I, like others in this chamber, attended a football match on Sunday that was well behaved and a credit to both sets of fans from different sides of the country, and that is how we want to see football enjoyed.
The issue is not just about marches and demonstrations. I, too, have received complaints over the past few months from constituents who include Rangers supporters as well as Celtic supporters. It has been suggested that the 2012 act is being used to harass football fans, not deal with illegal behaviour. The cabinet secretary would be foolish to ignore those growing complaints. Will he act and order an inquiry with a report to the Parliament before large sections of football supporters lose confidence in the police?
I have every confidence in the police. I recall that Rangers recently played in a game in Berwick that was broadcast live in which sectarian singing was clearly audible, and there were great complaints about that. I am delighted to say that it appears that the police have taken some action, as the 2012 act has extraterritoriality. That has been welcomed. It will be for the courts to decide, so I will not go into any matters further, as they are sub judice. However, we believe that the 2012 act is working well. Some 84 per cent of those who have been dealt with under it have been convicted, and Scottish sport and football are better for it.
A number of my constituents have raised concerns with me, too, about the weekend’s events. Can the cabinet secretary provide further details on the strategy for tackling disorderly behaviour in general?
The strategy is to work with football authorities, which we do, to prioritise public safety and address any threatening sectarian or other offensive behaviour at football matches. That is why we brought in the act and established the football co-ordination unit for Scotland. We work with football authorities to allow the game to be enjoyed. The game on Sunday was enjoyed by 45,000 people at Hampden, and that is what should happen at football matches. They should be enjoyed without people who are watching on television or who are in the ground or anywhere else having to put up with offensive and threatening sectarian behaviour.
Like other members, I have been contacted by many constituents in Glasgow about the specific instance at the weekend. I have also been contacted in the past following demonstrations by anti-fascist and anti-austerity campaigners in Glasgow, and I am being contacted more often by football supporters.
I can only refer Mr Smith to the answers that I gave to Mr McMahon earlier. He took it upon himself to meet representatives of Strathclyde Police. I suggest that Mr Smith liaise with Strathclyde Police. If he is still dissatisfied after that, he has the right, through how matters are dealt with constitutionally and by statute, to raise the matter with the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland.
Previous
Time for Reflection