Chamber and committees

To tackle such behaviour, we continue to invest significantly in policing, with £1.64 billion of funding provided this year and £1.7 billion provided for the next financial year. Although operational policing decisions are rightly a matter for Police Scotland, I welcome the positive examples of its activity in this area, including the increase in the number of seizures of such bikes and vehicles.

We have also funded a Crimestoppers summer campaign on off-road vehicle misuse, begun to review antisocial behaviour legislation and expanded our cashback for communities programme to divert young people from antisocial behaviour.

The Scottish Government wants to work collectively to address concerns. We recognise that this is a common issue across the whole of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, with some legislation in this area being reserved, so we have proposed further interministerial discussions to consider how we can tackle our shared concern.

I cannot speak for the next Scottish Government, but I assure the member that, if the Scottish National Party is back in Government in the next session, we will engage on the issue on a cross-party basis. As I said to Michael Marra, legislation on this matter is quite complex, because it falls between reserved and devolved areas. However, we can do some work on it, and I hope that that work will progress in the next parliamentary session.

I agree with the member on that point. Although one homicide would still be too many, homicides in Scotland are at a record low. The number of sharp object-related homicide victims fell by 49 per cent from 55 in 2007-08 to just 28 in 2024-25. Over the past 20 years, the number of homicide victims aged between 13 and 19 decreased by 75 per cent from 44 during the five-year period of 2005 to 2010 to 11 during the five-year period of 2020 to 2025.

Yes, of course—just as everyone has a responsibility to behave appropriately and in line with the law, no matter where they are. Just because they are at a football match does not mean that the rules of society and the rule of law are not in place.

No one should feel that being in a stadium on a match day somehow gives them permission to act in ways that they would not do in other parts of society. It is clear that a minority of people who attend football matches believe that they can behave in any way that they want, without any thought for the safety or security of the vast majority of fans who go to matches to support and enjoy watching their football team. With regard to the minority of fans who behave illegally and irresponsibly, action will be taken by Police Scotland, and action should be taken by the clubs.

Our preferred solution has always been that football should proactively shape and deliver a robust and meaningful solution to tackle unacceptable conduct by supporters. For example, over the past year, clubs have instituted solutions on the misuse of pyrotechnics. The SPFL is taking a strong stance on that, and over the past couple of years it has been instrumental in examining how we could strengthen football banning orders, especially in cases that involve pyrotechnics.

I join John Mason in condemning the appalling behaviour of those who invaded the pitch and acted in a violent and disorderly manner, ruining what had otherwise been an exciting football experience for fans. Disorder of that nature is not acceptable; it risks the safety of players, fans, stewards and police officers.

I spoke to Police Scotland yesterday evening and have this morning spoken to both the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League. We are of one mind in saying that such behaviour is not acceptable and that action must be taken to prevent its recurrence. We all need to play our part, and I am reassured that the police, football authorities and football clubs want to work with us to ensure that there will be no repeat of the scenes that we witnessed on Sunday.

As I said, I spoke to the SFA and the SPFL this morning, when the SFA confirmed that it would be speaking to both clubs to establish the facts of Sunday’s events. I am keen to let that process play out. There is also the judicial panel process, and I do not want to interfere with that. The SPFL has confirmed that it is considering very carefully its scheduling of the remaining old firm fixtures, in consultation with Police Scotland. The Scottish Government speaks to both organisations very regularly. We will continue to do that on this issue. As the member said, behaviour such as invading the pitch, engaging in violence, setting off and throwing pyrotechnics and carrying out vandalism is appalling and completely unacceptable.

Yes, absolutely. However, it is quite complex to find hidden masks or pyrotechnics, for example, when people enter stadiums. Those are the sorts of challenges that are faced.

Just before every game, the clubs, Police Scotland and local authorities make sure that robust measures are in place, through the safety advisory group process. Despite that, when people are determined to engage in disorder, it is difficult to prevent it entirely. The speed with which Police Scotland and the stewards dealt with the issue on Sunday suggests that appropriate levels of policing and stewarding were in place. However, there are lessons to be learned, and they will be looking into what happened on Sunday.

No, I do not.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

I will be brief. Section 4 specifies what constitutes an offer—that is, a proposal made to one or more persons containing sufficiently definite terms to form a contract and indicating the intention of the offeror to be bound if the offer is accepted by the other party or parties. The current drafting refers to the person making the proposal as the “proposer”. In order to avoid arguments about whether the proposer could be a third party and for reasons of consistency with terms used elsewhere in the bill, my amendment 1 substitutes the word “proposer” with the word “offeror”.

I move amendment 1.