Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 15, 2018

Official Report 982KB pdf

---

Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-10790, in the name of James Kelly, on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill, at stage 3.

15:47  

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 has been a failure: it has not tackled bigotry and has been widely criticised by law groups and human rights groups. Football fans have been treated as second-class citizens. The football act is the worst legislation in the history of the Scottish Parliament, and it is time for it to go.

The reality is that the legislation that was introduced by the Government, and passed by Parliament in December 2011 against the will of every Opposition party, has not worked. Every reasonable member of Parliament condemns bigotry and sectarianism, including the incidents last weekend. However, the legislation has failed to tackle sectarianism and religious intolerance.

Let us consider the religious aggravation statistics. There were 719 charges with religious aggravations in 2016-17. That is more charges than there were in the year that preceded the introduction of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. Only 46 of those charges were for offences in or around football grounds. I am not glossing over religious aggravations that happen at football grounds. Religious aggravations must be taken seriously whether they happen at football grounds, in the street, outside a religious venue or in a club. The statistics show that the problem of religious intolerance goes much wider than football.

The failure of the Government’s approach lies in the fact that it adopted a simplistic approach: it thought that introducing legislation would deal with the problem of sectarianism. Sectarianism is a complex problem that has, unfortunately, been with us for a long time.

We all agree that the problem of sectarianism affects a wider range of issues than just football, but does James Kelly accept that opinion polls regularly show that the public think that football is the main context in which sectarianism is seen?

We should examine the evidence, which shows that of the 719 charges with religious aggravation—that number is a concern to all of us, because it shows that there are issues of religious intolerance in society at large—only 46 took place around football. That shows that there is a gap between perception and reality. There should be a much wider and more serious conversation. The Government has a job to do to bring about consensus and to bring people together. Instead of cutting anti-sectarianism budgets, it needs to come up with a different approach. I am quite prepared to work with the Government on that.

With regard to issues with the act, we need look only at the evidence that was submitted to the Justice Committee during stage 1. We heard from fans, human rights groups and legal experts. The Law Society of Scotland told us that there is no gap in the law.

We can also look at some of the human examples. Lawyers told us that the common profile of people who are captured under the act is a young person under the age of 20 who is in employment and has not previously come into contact with the police or the criminal justice system. That is backed up by recent statistics that show that nearly a third of cases did not result in prosecutions.

We can see that from practical examples that have been provided. One involves a Rangers supporter, who was arrested at Rugby Park on a Thursday night, detained overnight in a police cell and released on to the streets of Kilmarnock at 5.30 in the morning. He then had to spend £60 on a taxi to Glasgow to go to work. He incurred costs of hundreds of pounds in legal fees, lost wages as a result of missing work and suffered stress over the impact that a conviction would have on his employment, but was ultimately found not guilty.

Another example involves a 46-year-old Hibernian supporter who attended the 2016 Scottish cup final. At the end of the game, he went on the pitch with his grown-up son and daughter. Okay—he should not have gone on the pitch. He had a wander around on the pitch, sang a few songs and then left. [Interruption.] I will finish. He then left to join the celebrations with his family. Three months later, at 7.30 in the morning, 12 police officers in three police vans turned up at his house and he was arrested and charged under the 2012 act. The man was a member of the local community council and was on the parents board. He resigned from those posts because he was worried about the case and because of stress. Subsequently, with the help of defence lawyers, he was able to piece together what he had done on the pitch. As I said, he wandered around and had a bit of a celebration, but did not commit any public order offences. Subsequently, the charges were dropped. If people were being treated like this—

I am not clear where Mr Kelly is going with this. Is he advocating more pitch invasions?

I am advocating that the Government stop treating football fans like second-class citizens.

It is quite clear from the evidence to the Justice Committee on sections 1 and 6 that the legislation has been widely criticised and discredited. As an approach to sectarianism, it has not worked. It has created confusion and division, so it is time to consign this discredited legislation to the dustbin of history.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:55  

The bottom line is that there is a problem with abusive and offensive behaviour at Scottish football. It is a continuing problem and it cannot be excused as mere banter or as passion.

During the old firm match last Sunday, some Rangers supporters indulged themselves by singing songs including “Flute for 50 Pence”, “The Billy Boys” and “Super Rangers”, with offensive lyrics added to them. Which MSP in this chamber would describe that songbook as mere “banter”?

At the same match, some of the Celtic support joined in by singing songs, including “The Boys of the Old Brigade” and “Celtic Symphony”, with offensive lyrics added to them. Which MSP in this chamber would describe that songbook as being simply “passionate”?

Will the minister give way?

Throughout the match, missiles were thrown between the segregated fans and flares were set off with no regard for the fact that children and young people were attending the match—not to mention the vast majority of people who just wanted to enjoy some good football. Who in this chamber thinks that that was all just harmless fun?

Will the minister give way?

Before the match, up to 500 supporters, many wearing balaclavas, marched to Ibrox displaying a banner that said, “Good night, green and white” and showed an image of a silhouetted figure wearing a green-and-white hooped jersey being kicked in the head. The group sang celebratory Rangers songs and offensive songs, including “Follow Follow”, which contains expletives referring to the Pope, and “The Billy Boys” chant, including offensive add-ons.

The flyer that was distributed calling on supporters to participate in those disturbances described the derby match as—I reluctantly quote this—

“the match against the Fenians”.

Pictures of the march show some members of the group making Nazi salutes.

Will the minister give way?

No, I will not.

After the match, there were reports of violence between the two sets of fans on Govan Road, including a minibus being pelted with glass.

Of course, it is not only a Glasgow problem. On the same weekend, about an hour prior to kick-off in the derby match in Edinburgh, approximately 150 Hearts supporters congregated in an area near Easter Road. Offensive singing was heard from them, including renditions of their version of “Gorgie Boys” with offensive add-ons. A significant number of pyrotechnic devices were discharged from among the Hearts supporters, with three being thrown onto the pitch, which resulted in the kick-off being delayed.

Will the minister give way?

Coins were thrown at Hibs players on the pitch during the match, and the second half was disturbed by pitch incursions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is this speech a ministerial statement, which is not intervened on, or is it part of the debate?

Sit down, Mr Rumbles. That is not a point of order, as you are well aware. It is up to the member, whoever that member is, whether they take interventions.

What that snapshot of just one weekend of football fixtures tells us is not that the 2012 act should be repealed, but that it should be strengthened and improved in order to tackle the behaviour to which we cannot simply turn a blind eye. Repealing the 2012 act without there being a viable alternative sends the signal that this Parliament is happy to let such behaviour go unchecked and unchallenged.

In the rush to repeal the 2012 act, there has been a lot of denial about the fact that it will impact negatively on communities across Scotland. Those communities know the negative impact that football can have.

Yesterday, YouthLink Scotland and ScotCen Social Research published independent research that asked respondents about use of sectarian language and their perceptions of sectarianism in social media. Of the respondents, 76 per cent view football as the main contributor to sectarianism. That verifies the reports of the independent advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland, which noted that football provides a “permissive environment” that allows sectarianism and other offensive and abusive behaviour to thrive. There are also the findings of the Scottish social attitudes survey 2014, in which 88 per cent of people surveyed cited football as the most common contributor to sectarianism in Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

I would like to make progress.

There is a specific problem with behaviour at football, as is widely recognised by Scottish communities. Repealing the act will do nothing to reassure them.

It may be only a minority of fans who behave in those ways, but it has an impact that is significant enough to tarnish the reputation of Scottish football and spoil the game for people who simply want to enjoy supporting their team.

I am grateful that the minister has eventually decided to take an intervention.

I make the case that our shared revulsion at the level of sectarianism and ill behaviour in Scotland, including that which is associated with football, is an argument for having good law, not a defence of bad law.

Patrick Harvie should work with us to amend and improve the law, rather than taking away—without putting in place a viable alternative—the protections and the signal that such behaviour is not acceptable in Scottish society.

When we look back further than last weekend, we see that, in this season alone, there have been reports of racist behaviour by supporters and abusive behaviour towards people because of their disability or mental health conditions. In October 2017, a man pleaded guilty to an offence, under section 6, of threatening to shoot and kill Neil Lennon.

Legislation has an important role to play in tackling offensive behaviour at football. As I said to Patrick Harvie, we do not provide protection to vulnerable communities by repealing legislation—we provide protection by improving and updating legislation.

As a responsible Government that is faced with the manifest irresponsibility of repealing the act without putting in place a viable alternative, we remain committed to providing the best possible legislative framework to protect people from malicious harm. That is why I commissioned Lord Bracadale to review hate crime legislation in Scotland.

There is a problem with the toxic behaviour that we see at, and which is associated with, football. The persistent, abusive and offensive behaviour that is linked to football will not go away on its own. It is an expression of the unhealthy culture that surrounds football. The Scottish Government will do all that it can to tackle that behaviour, even in the face of today’s irresponsible move to repeal the 2012 act without putting in place a viable alternative.

Liam Kerr will open for the Conservatives. You have five minutes, Mr Kerr.

16:02  

I thought that I had six minutes, Presiding Officer.

I have five minutes on my list. However, I will be generous. That is my position as the referee.

I will be as brief as possible. I open for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of passing the bill. It is clear and unambiguous in its ambit: if passed, it will repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. The act should be repealed because it is bad law, and, more than that, it is unnecessary law. The objectives of the act—to tackle sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour at football—were laudable, but as the committee and the Parliament heard repeatedly, the offending behaviour that the 2012 act was designed to address was, and remains, fully covered by the substantive existing criminal law.

According to the Law Society of Scotland, all 287 charges brought under section 1 of the act in 2015-16,

“could have been prosecuted under pre-existing legislation”.

The Justice Committee heard from senior police officer, Assistant Chief Constable Higgins, who said that,

“In the absence of the act, someone who was arrested for singing an offensive song would almost certainly have been charged with a breach of the peace or a section 38 offence.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 October 2017; c 19.]

Professor Leverick was unequivocal when she said:

“breach of the peace, section 38 and a number of statutory aggravations are in place … offensive behaviour at football matches could be dealt with under pre-2012 legislation.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 7 November 2017; c 32.]

If the act had worked and achieved its objective of tackling sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour at football, it could be argued that that would not be a consideration. Has the act worked? I refer members to Ms Ewing’s comments about how ineffective it has been and how little it has achieved.

Dr Joseph Webster told the committee:

“The 2012 act has made the policing of sectarianism more difficult, because fans have got wise to how to circumvent the law”.

Worse, he went on to say:

“it has led to a deterioration in relationships between the fan bases and between them and the police.”

What about the song sheets that, during the stage 1 debate, George Adam assured us had been put away since 2012? Dr John Kelly told the committee that

“since the 2012 act came in there have actually been more of what the Scottish Government might define as problematic songs.”

Dr Joseph Webster elaborated by talking of the reality of what is going on:

“What fans have done is change their behaviour by holding their hands in front of their mouths while singing certain songs in order to prevent CCTV from capturing them singing them … they have replaced certain songs and chants with other words in order to try to skirt the law.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 14 November 2017; c 59, 50, 49.]

We have an act that has added nothing to the legislative landscape, has not achieved what it intended and has actually been counterproductive in redirecting and camouflaging—but not stopping—offensive behaviours and prejudices.

However, like many, including some Scottish National Party back benchers, although I agree with the principle of repealing the act, I remain concerned about the possibility of a particular message being sent out. I understand that concern and have reflected on it at length, but I am persuaded that it is not an issue. I just do not accept—and no evidence has been presented—that there is a whole cadre of people sitting at home saying, “If only the act was not there, I’d be out singing right now. If those MSPs get rid of the act, they clearly think these songs are okay.”

Does the member agree that the equality groups are actually frightened to go to football matches? Does he disregard what they said at the Justice Committee evidence session?

I certainly do not disregard the evidence that was given, which was extremely important. I direct the member towards a point that was made by Liam McArthur at stage 1 and earlier today, which is that it is deeply irresponsible to give such groups false reassurance that the act will protect them. We have to take it away and give them a proper message that we will protect them.

I also think that a rather unpleasant assumption is inherent in the argument about a message to the football fans, who are being treated as a homogenous, malevolent, ignorant entity. The evidence from the Scottish Football Association, Police Scotland and fan groups showed unequivocally that the number of football fans who engage in criminal behaviour is minimal. I go back to my statistics from earlier: there were 287 charges—not even convictions—under the act last year. Just think how many people go to football in Scotland each weekend. To say that ineffective, ill-drafted, counterproductive legislation should not be repealed because, hypothetically, that might be received by a tiny minority of people in a particular way is not a good enough reason not to repeal it.

ACC Higgins said:

“I cannot arrest my way out of changing hate crime and sectarianism in this country; a far wider approach is needed to challenging behaviour that is inappropriate.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 October 2017; c 16.]

He is right. There is a problem with sectarianism, but it is not exclusive to football, and the 2012 act was disproportionate in targeting fans of the sport.

Dr Joseph Webster was clear in saying to the Justice Committee:

“Has the singing decreased? No, it has been redirected. Is the law working? No, we need to replace it with other methods of behavioural change, with the most sensible probably being early years education.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 14 November 2017; c 49.]

I agree and, furthermore, the police and courts need to use the powers that they already have to stop such behaviour. Speakers throughout today will no doubt address those solutions, but on the substantive point we should ask: is this bill—to repeal an ill-drafted, ineffective, counterproductive act, in a manner that will not send the message that people are concerned about—the right thing to do? I say yes, absolutely—and I look forward to voting for it at decision time tonight.

I call Daniel Johnson to open the debate for Labour. You have five minutes, Mr Johnson—I hope that I have got that right this time.

16:07  

I understood that, Presiding Officer, but if you want to give me an extra minute that would be fine.

I begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling and concern that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012—and, in turn, its repeal—elicits on all sides of the debate. I understand the worry that has been expressed from members on the SNP benches and the concern about the scourge of sectarianism that lies behind it. While I disagree with those members about this bill to repeal the act, I share their concern about this pernicious aspect of our culture and their conviction that we must act to counter it. However, let me say this seriously and gently to them: the 2012 act does not serve the purpose that is claimed or that they purport. It provides no additional power to the police or prosecutors and has had unintended and unjustifiable human consequences. Above all else, it has been profoundly illiberal in its effect.

Will the member clarify for me just what the repeal of the act will do to counter sectarianism?

Repeal of the act will enable us to use the existing law, which will be able to protect those people and to focus on the causes of sectarianism rather than its context.

From the evidence that we have heard through stages 1 and 2 of the bill—and, indeed, through the debate on the amendments that we have just had—it is clear that there is no legal need for the 2012 act. Indeed, as other speakers have said, the Lord Advocate’s instruction to prosecutors to stop bringing cases under OBFA and to use alternative statute and common law is an acknowledgment that that law is legally redundant and that its time on the statute book is coming to an end.

There is a danger that the repeal of the 2012 act is viewed from a narrow and technical legal perspective. The real issue with the act is not its legal effect, but its very real human impact and the damage that it has done. It is when we hear the stories of the people caught up in the unintended consequences and the misguided exercise of the act that the real need for its repeal becomes clear.

There is the dad who has been charged three times only to have his case thrown out of court each time. Those experiences cost him not only £4,000 in legal fees but his job. Perhaps worst of all, they cost him the opportunity to be present at the birth of his first child, because he was in court.

There is the man who was arrested simply for asking why the friend with whom he was at the football was being detained by the police. Apparently, asking that question was deemed to be threatening and offensive, in and of itself. Again, he was found not guilty at court.

Football fans are losing work, losing money and having their family lives disrupted. The 2012 act is putting people with no prior contact with the criminal justice system into a cell and into court only to be found not guilty.

Will the member take an intervention?

In a moment. Perhaps most troubling are the stories that do not just tell of the dysfunction in the law, but demonstrate the fundamentally illiberal consequences of the legislation. Football fans have been arrested for wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and—irony of ironies—for flying a banner with the words “Axe the act” on it. Whether or not one agrees with the statements that they are making, people have a right to political expression. In any other context, those acts would be viewed as innocuous, or even celebrated as the acts of people exercising their civic rights. On that point, I am happy to give way to Fulton MacGregor.

Daniel Johnson will know that many members on these benches have sympathy with some of the things that he has mentioned, but would he not agree that they are a problem with the implementation of the 2012 act, rather than the act itself? What we should have been doing was working together to get those aspects right.

I would have some sympathy with the member if the police were saying that they would not be able to use the existing law to prosecute many of the actions, but they can. The evidence from the police to the committee was very clear. They would be able to use other laws such as the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, the Communications Act 2003 or, indeed, common law breach of the peace.

Ultimately, what we need to do is tackle the underlying causes. When we hear those examples and stories it is hard not to conclude that the 2012 act is illiberal and wrong. At previous stages of this bill and in the chamber today, the founders of the act have fallen back on asking what message it will send if we vote to repeal it. I acknowledge that a legitimate function of legislation is to communicate what is acceptable and what is not. Likewise, the things that we vote for and against in this Parliament also send messages. However, I pose this question: what message does it send if we let the act stand—an act that provides no additional power to the authorities, has damaged trust in the police, has had huge personal consequences for individuals and is so profoundly illiberal?

Scottish Labour is proud to support James Kelly’s bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, and we hope that members from across the chamber will join us at decision time this evening.

16:13  

I am really disappointed with a lot of what I have heard so far. The Scottish Green Party has always been opposed to the 2012 act. I was not personally opposed, but I am now. As I said in the debate on the amendments, I think that James Kelly has made his case, based on the legal evidence that we have heard, including the evidence of fans, and I was particularly persuaded on the human rights aspect.

I would like to make the case that shinty is our national sport, but I suppose that most folk would say that football is. A Government minister should not have trashed football in the way that she did—that was the purpose of my intervention. All the evidence shows that, across Europe, Scotland has the highest percentage of residents who attend football matches.

We heard from the police that they are perfectly capable of policing without the 2012 act. We also heard from them that, with the exception of two clubs, every senior football club in Scotland has held football matches without a police presence. Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that fans across Scotland are at war with police—an idea that has been put forward by people in various quarters.

I should have declared at the outset my various associations with Heart of Midlothian Football Club that are mentioned in my entry in the register of interests. Obviously, I would abhor behaviour such as the minister outlined.

I attended my first football match in this city more than 50 years ago and policed my first football match in this city more than 40 years ago. There have been significant changes since then. Today’s situation is a world apart, and that is not just down to the removal of alcohol from stadiums or the introduction of all-seater stadiums; there has been a huge move in respect of fan behaviour.

No one would support the situation that you outlined. The language that we all use is very important.

I reiterate that I was simply repeating what happened last weekend—it was a snapshot of that. If the member does not feel that that suggests that with some fans—I have always said that it is the minority of fans—there is a problem in and around football, I do not know what would need to happen to convince him.

I assure you that on the rare occasions when I go to neutral venues—I often go to see Nairn County—there is no problem there. There is no problem at the vast majority of grounds. The behaviour that you outlined is behaviour that would be taking place anyway on many occasions; it is taking place notwithstanding the act being on the statute book.

On the language that we use, every one of us, regardless of which side of the debate we are on, has to respect the parliamentary process. The legislation that we are seeking to repeal was no more forced through than the bill, which I hope will pass tonight, is being forced through. There has been scrutiny in both instances and James Kelly very clearly made his case.

We heard compelling evidence, which has been alluded to a number of times. We heard from Professor Fiona Leverick about the alleged gap. We heard from ACC Higgins, who, I think, articulated the dilemma that the police find themselves in in many instances. I suspect that they will be roundly criticised regardless, but they deal with the legislation that is front of them. We heard clearly that there is a sufficiency of legislation already for them to deal with the issues that you outlined.

I want to mention one more aspect of the tone of the debate and the language that is being used. When Mr Kelly said in response to a question that he will work with anyone to address the issue of sectarianism, I heard groans around me. Let no one be groaning about that; let us all get together. Let us recognise that sectarianism is a problem for all of us. I am happy to work with anyone and everyone to address the scourge that is there. We will be voting for Mr Kelly’s bill tonight.

I gently remind members to speak through the chair and not to use the term “you” in the chamber. For the umpteenth time, I remind members to please just say “the member” or name the member. That is directed to all members present.

16:17  

No one in the chamber condones sectarian or offensive behaviour. Every single one of us is genuinely committed to confronting and combating hate crime, whatever form it takes, wherever it takes place. No MSP or political party can credibly claim a monopoly on caring about these issues. Given the tone and content of some of what has been said during the scrutiny of the bill, and again this afternoon, it is important not to lose sight of those basic truths.

It is also imperative that we recognise our collective responsibility for reinforcing the unambiguous message that the law will continue to provide protections against offensive behaviour wherever it takes place and will continue to provide protections against threatening communications.

Of course the legislative landscape for tackling hate crime can be improved. I remain confident that Lord Bracadale’s review will help us go some way to achieving that, but it is wrong and increasingly irresponsible for the Government to continue fanning anxieties about alleged gaps in the law, which is simply not supported by the evidence. The Law Society of Scotland could not have been clearer when it said:

“the offending behaviour which the 2012 Act was designed to address was and remains fully covered by the substantive and existing criminal law. The Bill, if passed, will not leave any gap in the criminal law as existing measures, both statutory and at common law, will allow for the prosecution of any relevant offending behaviour”.

Similarly, as others have said, ACC Higgins assured the Justice Committee that, in the event of repeal,

“the police would continue to ... address the behaviour using other legislation.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 October 2017; c 3.]

Already we see the Lord Advocate instructing prosecutors to stop using the discredited, ineffective and illiberal 2012 act and instead to use pre-existing statutory offences or common law. Neither Police Scotland nor the Lord Advocate is talking in terms of gaps in the law or weakened protections. They recognise that that is neither true nor helpful in providing assurances to those who have been voicing concerns. I hope that the minister will now follow suit.

After all, although legislation can and does play a role in conveying a message about what we, as a society, find acceptable or unacceptable, it is surely irresponsible to allow the misconception to go unchallenged that the law is providing protection to people, when that is not the case. I struggle to accept that the wrong message is sent by repealing an act that does not provide the protection that its supporters claim that it does.

However, repeal of the 2012 act is not a do-nothing strategy, as the minister and some of her back benchers have argued again today, in the face of the sectarianism that we all accept continues to blight too many of our communities. Yes, repeal will help remove from the statute book a piece of legislation that has not only proved ineffective but done more harm than good to our efforts to combat sectarianism and encourage a change of attitudes and behaviours. However, repeal must go hand in hand with a renewed commitment to take steps that we know from the evidence are effective. Danny Boyle from BEMIS told the committee that

“the most sensible thing is to create a universal approach to tackling hate crime that is preventative and rooted in education but which also has a strong legal remedy when necessary.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 October 2017; c 12.]

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Danny Boyle’s view is supported by the Government’s advisory group on tackling sectarianism, which argued that the foundations for change rest on initiatives that focus on prevention and building trust and understanding, recognising that councils, churches, football clubs, schools, the media and community organisations are all key in delivering effective grass-roots solutions.

I commend James Kelly for, and congratulate him on, his hard work and perseverance on the issue of the 2012 act and bringing forward the bill. I also thank all those who helped the Justice Committee in our deliberations. However, I look forward to Parliament taking the step shortly, which it should never have had to take, of removing an ineffective, counterproductive and illiberal piece of legislation from the statute book.

We move to the open debate, with tight four-minute speeches.

16:21  

If ever the need for the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was highlighted, it was last weekend. After bringing the union bears march to the attention of others on Twitter, I was threatened—the police have been contacted and I have a meeting arranged with them—I was told that my 83-year-old mum was dead and I was subjected to infantile abuse from grown men as well as the usual utter bigoted nonsense that we get from the extreme wings of both sides of the Glasgow footballing divide.

There is no doubt that, in the past few weeks, there has been an upsurge in blatant sectarian singing at football games. All members will have seen on Sunday images showing the vile sight of balaclava-wearing, Nazi-saluting thugs parading our streets like some kind of paramilitary outfit. It seems clear to me that the perceived imminent repeal of the 2012 act has emboldened some of the worst to go more public with their intention to show who is boss.

The 2012 act was brought in because legislation was clearly required to deal with the scourge of sectarianism that blights our game of football. Despite what our opponents continue to proclaim, that did not happen because of the “game of shame”—that was just the final straw. In 2009, things were so bad that UNICEF had to ask for reassurance that Rangers fans would stop singing the famine song; in 2011, the Catholic Church wrote about its concerns about anti-Catholic songs and chants at the league cup final; and, just this morning, Neil Lennon said that sectarianism was equal to racism and should be dealt with accordingly. I wonder whether Mr Kelly thinks that UNICEF, Mr Lennon and the Catholic Church were wrong to raise those concerns and that they should just have let the people sing.

Please do not tell me that football can deal with this, given that it was highlighted again by yesterday’s report that Scottish Professional Football League delegates have constantly had their reports of sectarian singing at football grounds ignored. The football authorities are clearly too lily-livered to take on the vested interests of the big two football clubs and have no intention of battling with the issue head on. It has therefore been left to the Government and—I had hoped—the Parliament to deal with it.

Do not insult us by saying that there is no support for legislation on the issue. The YouthLink report that was mentioned earlier shows that 80 per cent of young people think that there is a problem with sectarian language on social media, much of it relating to football; 72 per cent think that posting comments or images on social media that are offensive towards someone because they are a Protestant or a Catholic causes some degree of harm to Scotland’s image and reputation; and, more important, 68 per cent think that there should be sentencing of some kind for posting sectarian content online. If those young people who responded to that YouthLink survey think that there is a problem with the Scottish Government’s 2012 act, which has been opposed by every member of the Scottish Parliament outside the SNP, it is probably that they think that it is not harsh enough.

I urge every politician in the Scottish Parliament to ask themselves whether that is the type of country they want to be portrayed to the rest of the world. I accept, as others have said, that there are other ways of dealing with this. Those other ways are being attempted as we speak. Everyone has issues with the act, but the way to deal with them is not to repeal the act but to work with the Government to make it better.

I hear James Kelly and others say that they will work with the Government. Why have they not been doing that for the past number of years? They wait till they get victory and then say that they will work with the Government from a position of success. It is a pyrrhic success at the very least. Think of the message that repealing the act sends. Scenes like Sunday’s will become more regular as those groups of fans become more emboldened. The truth is that, deliberately or not, those who vote for repeal tonight will be enabling that type of behaviour.

The only consideration that members should have in mind when we vote today is whether the decision will make Scotland a better place to live in. Given what members have seen in the past weekend alone, can any in the chamber honestly say that, by repealing the act today, they will have done that?

16:25  

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak today as we get set to repeal this piece of unnecessary, illiberal and unworkable legislation. The position was accurately described by Dr Stuart Waiton, a senior lecturer at Abertay University, when he spoke to the Justice Committee recently. He said that the act criminalises “words and thoughts”. He said:

“We hide behind the public order issue, but essentially it is about the criminalisation of words and thoughts, and the arresting and imprisoning of people because we do not like their words.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 14 November 2017; c 38.]

Dr Joseph Webster of Queen’s University, Belfast—and he should know—also told the committee that

“the act is not justified on free speech grounds.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 14 November 2017; c 36.]

Those are not concerns held only by academics. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that restrictions of freedom of expression made the act contrary to human rights treaties, and in 2014 the commission reported its concerns to the United Nations so that it could monitor whether the restrictions that the act places on freedom of speech

“are truly necessary in a democratic society.”

Will the member give way?

Let me continue. Professor Sir Tom Devine labelled the act “counterproductive”. The Celtic Trust has described how the act is “unjust” and has “soured relationships” between the police and fans. Fans groups have highlighted instances of injustice caused by the act that have only left football fans feeling more isolated.

In his submission to the committee, Paul Quigley of Fans Against Criminalisation told of a Rangers fan who was arrested for holding a banner that simply said “Axe the act”.

Will the member give way?

I will give way to John Mason.

Please sit down, Ms McAlpine.

Is it the member’s argument that there should be complete freedom of speech for anyone to say anything? Would he restrict freedom of speech in some way?

I thank the member for that comment. The answer is that the existing law covers that and is there already. This is an unnecessary law to add on top. People can easily be charged and the member knows that as well as I do.

Paul Quigley also spoke of a Motherwell fan who was arrested, held in a Greenock prison for four days and then convicted of singing a song that simply included profanity about a rival team. I do not appreciate swearing or profanity at any sporting event, but I certainly do not believe that it is worthy of a criminal conviction. Andrew Jenkin of Supporters Direct Scotland, who submitted that the act is counterproductive, said:

“You cannot have legislation that applies to one specific sector of society; that is grossly unfair.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 October 2017; c 51.]

Those comments come because of the SNP Government’s failure to reach out to the football community. Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association spoke to the Justice Committee of the public relations failures that accompanied the act and how it had left fans feeling targeted.

It is not only football fan groups who have pointed out the unfairness of the act in targeting football fans and matches alone. Stewart Regan, the former chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, said:

“Football has been targeted and singled out, and a piece of legislation has been put in place that focuses exclusively on football. No other sport has that, and no other element of society has that ... between 2004 and 2013 at T in the Park, there were 3,600 incidents, three attempted murders, three drug-related deaths, 10 sexual assaults, one abduction and 2,000 drug offences. A summit was not called”—

by this Government—

“after T in the Park events and no emergency legislation was put in place.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 7 November 2017; c 26.]

It is clear that the football world at large and the general public want the act to be repealed. A lot of people and organisations took part in the consultation on this bill, and a hefty 71 per cent of the respondents backed repeal of sections 1 to 5, while 62 per cent supported repeal of sections 6 to 9.

You must wind up, please.

The act has failed to tackle hate crime. BEMIS said that it was

“not convinced that it appropriately or effectively tackles hate crime”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 October 2017; c 5.]

and Assistant Chief Constable Higgins told the committee that we cannot arrest our way out—

I am sorry, but you must conclude—which means now. Please sit down.

16:30  

I made a number of efforts to write a speech for the debate, but I found it difficult to judge how the debate was going to be conducted. Would it be like the stage 1 debate, or would things have moved on? I have to say to the minister that I regret in the strongest terms the tone that she chose to use in introducing the Scottish Government’s position. I do not think that she has served her party well by impugning the motives of everyone in the chamber who disagrees with her and, in her description of what happened at the weekend, suggesting that people in here celebrated it, thought that it was a good idea or approved of it in any way.

The fact is that, as has been said, there is no monopoly in this chamber on concern about sectarianism. Right from the very beginning of this legislation coming into being, we, on the Labour benches, tested it and worried about it. I did that as our justice spokesperson and as the then leader of the party, and my decision to support James Kelly’s bill was not a decision that I took lightly. It is offensive—if I might use the term—to suggest otherwise.

The question is not whether we support sectarianism but how best to tackle it. There is a problem at the heart of the act in that it conflates being offensive with being sectarian. As a consequence, people are getting caught up in the legislation because they have no means of avoiding it. We have heard all sorts of examples of that this afternoon.

I also find deeply offensive the suggestion that everyone else in the chamber is somehow irresponsible and that they have not thought through these issues in great detail. I know that there were people, including those in the churches, who wanted us to tackle the question of sectarianism, but I doubt very much that those same churches and organisations also thought that young people should be caught up in the legal system for wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt or for having the audacity to express a political view. Such organisations should not be called in defence of such a position—they were arguing about sectarianism, not the merits of the legislation.

Again, today, we have heard the argument that passing the bill will send out a message. As has been said, however, this characterisation of football and football fans is simply wrong. This sort of thing does not happen routinely even in the old firm games, and it does not happen routinely at Pollok football ground or at grounds across the country. We need to name the problem in order to deal with it.

We have also been told that passing the bill will send out a message about our views on sectarianism. I am not sure how much of a comfort it would be to me if my son or daughter got caught up in the legal system for doing something that they were not even aware was an offence. None of us would want that for a member of our family, but that is the reality for all too many people who have been caught up in the legislation.

Moreover—I say this in all seriousness—what message does it send out about our commitment to tackling sectarianism when the budgets for programmes that educate our young people on such issues have been cut from £3 million to £500,000? The reality is that there is hard and heavy lifting to be done on the issue. It is not simply a case of passing the bill and hoping for the best; we need to do the heavy job of winning hearts and minds on these issues. There is no easy fix.

Of course, the other tactic that has been deployed is, as I have said, to impugn the motives of the political parties who oppose the SNP’s legislation.

That might work in here—it might be of some comfort to SNP backbenchers who have been whipped to support the Government on the ground that we are passing the bill only because we oppose them politically. However, we are not talking about what works in here; we are talking about what works in the real world.

Can you please conclude?

I urge members to support James Kelly’s bill because out there, in the real world, the 2012 act is not working and is having dire consequences. We have been told that by experts and by individuals from throughout Scotland, and we have a duty to listen to them.

16:35  

Everyone knows that I am a football fan and that football is an important part of my life. It is as a football fan that I will approach the debate, as I have done during the whole process.

Our national game is an important part of our country’s life and can, on occasions, affect the national mood. The 2012 act is about offensive behaviour at football, which is behaviour that football fans have experienced at various times in their lives and at various matches.

Football means so much to me that, along with Gordon Scott and my colleagues on the board of St Mirren Independent Supporters Association, I led a fan buy-out of St Mirren Football Club. I was involved from the start because I believe that fans play an important role in football and at every club.

Like most teams, we have a fierce and competitive rivalry with another team—in our case, it is Greenock Morton. Do people sometimes go overboard at derby matches? Probably, but, on the whole, they are good-tempered affairs with enjoyable banter between the fans.

St Mirren are top of the championship and Morton are fourth. Both teams could be promoted to the premier league this year and I hope that both are, because an Airdrie-Renfrewshire derby in Scotland’s premier division for the first time since the 1980s would do me—and probably Mr McMillan—quite nicely.

I do not have a hatred of Greenock Morton. That is where I have difficulty with the whole Rangers and Celtic thing—I do not get it. People’s hatred and bile towards one another seems alien to me. In the political world, I have disagreements with many members in here, but I do not hate them and I do not sing songs of hate towards them. We just have a debate, I say my piece and we move on.

The majority of football fans behave themselves—it is a very vocal minority who bring our beautiful game into disrepute. I was reminded of that on Monday when I attended my local gym—I know, Presiding Officer; you are wondering whether I should ask for my money back. While I was in the cafe, having my post-training bacon roll, I listened to a couple of Rangers and Celtic fans discussing the football match. It was good, clean fun and was filled with humour. It was a nice reminder that, in this week of all weeks, not all old firm fans are as we are led to believe. There was not one sectarian comment or mention of the various cultural aspects of either team.

Nevertheless, look what happened on Sunday: the union bears marched under their banners of hate, a young Rangers fan’s hearing was damaged, a footballer was abused at an airport departure lounge and the old song books from both sides came back to the fore. All the usual chaos following an old firm game took place in the west after that game. We know that such things continue to happen, and I support the 2012 act because it protects the majority of fans from such behaviour.

I will not go over the original reasons for supporting the act or the debates that we have had, but I will highlight some of the things that were said by some of those who came in front of the Justice Committee. Stonewall Scotland expressed concerns about repealing the act:

“We would be concerned that an outright repeal of the Act may send a worrying message that prejudiced based and threatening behaviour at football is acceptable”.

Do we truly want to tell the world that people consider such behaviour acceptable at football? The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities said:

“we urge the extension rather than the repeal of this legislation”.

This week, BBC Scotland reported that former Scottish Professional Football League match officials have stated that their reports on sectarianism and unacceptable behaviour are being ignored by the football authorities. If the act goes, not only will there be a gap in the law, as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has said, but an onus will be put back on the football authorities to do something about the issue—and I, for one, do not hold out any hope of that happening.

The debate should be about our conducting post-legislative scrutiny. Let us not say that this place is not good at post-legislative scrutiny; instead, why do we not look at the act, decide that we will make changes and make it better? I urge all members not to repeal the 2012 act but to let us look at it and make it better.

16:39  

Like all members, I loathe sectarianism and bigotry and I detest prejudice. Like most members, I am committed to working towards a tolerant, cohesive society in which people learn about and understand each other and live in peace with one another. As Johann Lamont said, we must put time, effort and money into addressing the issues under discussion, which seek to divide our society, promote hatred and undermine social solidarity.

I opposed the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 from the start because it was a misguided and simplistic attempt to address a complex societal problem. I strongly believe that we should repeal it by passing the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill.

I support the repeal of the 2012 act because, as Liam McArthur said, it is illiberal. It is wrong of the Parliament to take a backward step in relation to human rights. The act singles out one group of sports fans whose rights are removed simply for stepping across the threshold of a football stadium on match day. I support repeal of the act because it is based on class prejudice. In the main—although not exclusively—the act has criminalised young working-class men whose actions are seen as distasteful by those who believe that they have a God-given right to be the arbiters of good taste and to impose their taste, belief systems and values on others.

In a previous speech—which I think was probably on this subject—Mr Findlay talked about the fact that football is pricing itself out of the reach of the ordinary working-class guy. Now, he is saying to us that the bill is targeted at the very people he says have been priced out of the game. How does that work?

Exactly, Mr Dornan. I think that football is pricing itself away from its roots, but so committed are people to their teams that they will spend that money to go to matches come what may, and they will make sacrifices in other areas of their lives. That is the reality of the situation.

I support the repeal of the 2012 act because, as many members have said, it is unworkable. That view has been expressed by the police, lawyers, prosecutors and judges. I support the repeal of the act because, rather than having united fans, communities and the police to act as one against sectarianism, it has increased tensions, resentment and division between the police and fans.

We should seek to address sectarianism across society as a whole. We all want young people to learn to be tolerant, empathetic and respectful to all—as we want older people to be—and, in my experience, the overwhelming majority are. We are more likely to tackle sectarianism through education and youth work, in our schools, colleges, universities, pubs, bookies’ shops and workplaces, and by continuing to fund anti-sectarianism projects, youth projects and personal and social education in schools, but those are all areas in which funding has been slashed. That would be a better investment than demonising young football supporters.

I am pleased that members rejected all the amendments for the reasons that James Kelly set out, and I hope that the issues around section 6 will be addressed in the review of hate crime.

I commend my colleague James Kelly for his diligent and committed work in taking the bill through to this stage of the parliamentary process. Taking a member’s bill to this stage involves a huge commitment on the part not just of the member concerned but of their staff team. Mr Kelly and his team have worked with skill, reason and principle and have united all the Opposition parties. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government back benchers, who know in their hearts and minds that the 2012 act should be repealed, will do the right thing and support the bill. The act was ill conceived, badly drafted and difficult to implement. The passing of the bill is the right move for the Parliament to make.

I call Margaret Mitchell to close the debate for the Conservatives.

16:43  

It is clear from members’ speeches that, although the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill is contentious, all the Opposition parties are united in their support for repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

When the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was debated at stage 3 in 2012, concerns were raised that it was badly drafted, that it failed to define the behaviour that it was trying to criminalise and that it did not include a definition of sectarianism. In addition, there were warnings that the bill would restrict freedom of speech and discriminate against football fans. Those have now come to fruition.

During the passage of the repeal bill, the Justice Committee heard that that bad drafting has resulted in the 2012 act being applied inconsistently by police officers, and that, as Liam Kerr pointed out, conviction rates under the act are at a three-year low.

The 2012 act created two new offences. The section 1 offence covers offensive behaviour at regulated football matches. The section 6 offence covers threatening communications and applies more generally, rather than being directed solely at football fans. During the scrutiny of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, stakeholders argued that existing measures were already in place to deal with those two offences, and that view was expressed again in the evidence that the Justice Committee heard at stage 1 of the repeal bill that is before us today. Stakeholders argued that the section 1 offence can be prosecuted under other provisions, including as a breach of the peace offence and as an offence under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.

The section 6 offence refers to threatening communication with the intention of stirring up “hatred on religious grounds”. The heated arguments about the scrapping of section 6 leaving a gap in the law have not been helpful today, and I ask the minister to reflect on that. The fact is that the offending behaviour that the 2012 act was designed to address was and remains fully covered by substantive and existing criminal law. Section 38 of the 2010 act covers the provisions in section 6 of the 2012 act. Moreover, as James Kelly pointed out, in the case of Love v PF Stirling in 2014, a religious aggravation was added to a section 38 offence.

On the Government’s amendments to preserve section 6 for 12 months, the Law Society of Scotland makes the pertinent point that

“The timescale of twelve months could also be seen merely to complicate what might otherwise comprise a straightforward repeal of the 2012 Act”,

which

“will attract much publicity.”

It has indeed done so. It would confuse the public, who would believe that the 2012 act had been repealed but then find that prosecutions under section 6 of that act could continue for a further period. The intent behind James Kelly’s bill was that, once royal assent was achieved, the 2012 act would be repealed immediately. According to the Law Society, continuing any of the provisions

“is not required as the transitional arrangements will take account and provide safeguards for any existing prosecutions.”

Everyone is agreed that sectarian behaviour and intent to stir up religious hatred are totally unacceptable. If they are to be stamped out wherever they exist, all stakeholders—and, as John Finnie said, parliamentarians too—will need to work together. As a start, the Scottish Football Supporters Association has made some helpful general points about the need for a national education campaign on abusive language and behaviour. There will be an opportunity to discuss all the issues and the best way to resolve them in a measured fashion in the context of Lord Bracadale’s review. I hope that, this evening, the Parliament will determine that we will move forward in that way. The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the repeal of the 2012 act.

16:48  

Today, we have heard a lot about the problems that people associate with the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, but no tangible solutions to the problem of abusive and offensive behaviour at Scottish football that I described in my opening speech.

All offensive behaviour at football has to be met head on to be defeated. Why do we continue to excuse aggression at football, which manifests itself as racist, religious and homophobic slurs and bigotry, as simply banter or passion? That is not acceptable.

Legislation sets the standard for what is and is not acceptable in modern society. Therefore, legislation has an important role to play in tackling all societal problems, including offensive behaviour at football. We recognise that legislation on its own will never resolve any social issues, and the 2012 act has always been just one element of our work to tackle the problems.

When the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was introduced, offensive behaviour at and relating to football was at a high, with a bewildered public witnessing pitch-side violence between club managers and bullets and explosive devices being sent to prominent Catholics through the post. I am baffled as to why so many people in the chamber think that the pre-existing legislation is preferable to amending the 2012 act. Repeal will solve nothing.

Repealing the 2012 act will have consequences. It will leave a gap in legislation. I point to the Crown Office evidence—evidence that no Opposition member has seen fit to mention in the debate because it does not suit their narrative. Repeal will put constraints on the ability of prosecutors and our courts to tackle offensive behaviour at football and will lead to a lack of continuity of protection for vulnerable and minority communities.

I can see no positive argument for repealing the 2012 act without putting a viable alternative in its place. If the argument is that the 2012 act should be repealed because it is not working, how can the answer be to go backwards? It is naive to believe that returning to the pre-act days will do anything other than return us to the circumstances that led to the need for the act in the first place.

We have invested £13 million since 2012 in tackling sectarianism—more than any other Administration—with £9.8 million of that being directly invested to support community-based organisations to deliver grass-roots work. That unprecedented investment has allowed the delivery of nearly 200 projects across Scotland to date, including work with schools, football organisations, churches, youth groups, adult education organisations, employers, prisons and local authorities. That work has made, and is continuing to make, a huge difference in communities across Scotland. Despite attempts to reduce the agenda to being about legislation and football, it has never been simply about those issues.

If the 2012 act is repealed, we will of course continue to support work to tackle sectarianism in order to fulfil the recommendations of the independent advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. In the next financial year, I will ensure that the current £0.5 million of funding is protected by a real-terms increase to support this agenda.

As a responsible Government, we are committed to taking whatever action is needed to offer protection—[Laughter.] I am not sure why people are laughing—to our most vulnerable communities, including reinstating an improved version of the provisions in section 6. I have also given a clear commitment to consider all the recommendations that will shortly be made by Lord Bracadale as the outcome of his review of hate crime legislation in Scotland.

I ask all members in the chamber to think very carefully about what they are doing today and to consider whether they want to repeal a piece of legislation that was introduced to tackle a problem that we all know exists; whether they want to take away protection that minority communities and organisations such as Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Women’s Convention have told us that they value; and whether they want to send a signal that offensive and abusive behaviour is acceptable at football.

The repercussions of repeal will be felt by the very people we wish to protect. We have heard arguments that the 2012 act is an infringement of the human rights of a minority of football fans, but when did we last ask ourselves which has the greater priority—a person’s freedom to sing an offensive song or chant, or the victim’s right not to be humiliated, vilified and marginalised by offensive songs and chants?

The vast majority of fans do not sing offensive or sectarian songs, do not march to matches wearing balaclavas and carrying banners glorifying violence, and do not need to worry about the police intervening in their behaviour because they have no reason to do so. The majority of football fans are tired of those who continue to behave in that hateful and prejudicial way.

The Scottish Government stands on the side of the tens of thousands of football supporters the length and breadth of Scotland who are fed up with offensive and threatening behaviour being part of the Scottish game, and we shall shortly find out whether the Opposition members of this Parliament stand with them or stand against them.

16:54  

Liam McArthur was right when he said that it is important to get the tone of the debate right; there is a responsibility on us all, as MSPs, as we debate these challenging issues. I very much regret that some SNP members tried in their speeches to associate the events of last weekend with actions to repeal the 2012 act. I thought that that was really poor.

It goes without saying that every MSP and this Parliament, across all the parties, rejects and condemns hateful and bigoted behaviour, whether it takes place in a stadium, in the street or in a club.

There has been a lot of discussion about what messages would be sent out by retaining the legislation and by repealing it. The problem with the 2012 act is that it sends a weak message. The reality is that only one political party has supported it from its introduction in 2011 all the way through to today’s debate on the repeal bill. What message is sent by the fact that only the governing party signed up to such discredited legislation?

Even as a piece of law, the 2012 act has been criticised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which said that it could be open to challenge under the ECHR. The Law Society of Scotland thinks that the definitions in the act and its wide reach have meant that it could be challenged in the courts in this country.

All that results in weak legislation, and with weak legislation we send a weak message. I therefore completely reject the idea that keeping the legislation in place would in some way send out a powerful message. That is completely not the case.

There has been a lot of discussion about how we move forward and what the alternative is. That is extremely important. The first thing we need is proper discussion to enable us to understand all the issues. As I said in my opening speech, the fact that we have 719 charges with religious aggravation—the highest number for four years—shows us that there is a major issue. Away from the debate, we need to have a proper grown-up discussion.

When the 2012 act was first debated, I made the case that what was needed was a comprehensive hate-crime review. Now that that is taking place, does James Kelly agree that, once the polarised debate on the question of repeal is over—as he knows, the Greens will support his bill tonight—we all have a responsibility, across the political parties, to embrace whatever positive changes come through from a well considered and well thought out hate crime review, and to take action as a result of its recommendations?

Patrick Harvie makes a powerful point, and I remember him making those arguments in 2011. The Bracadale review gives us an opportunity to make hate-crime legislation more effective and efficient, allied to robust existing laws. That will send out a powerful message.

Will James Kelly take an intervention?

No. I am sorry, but I am short of time.

The other thing that is needed, as the Justice Committee highlighted, is proper investment in education in communities to tackle sectarianism. It was regrettable that Annabelle Ewing said that nobody offered any solutions. She clearly was not listening to the speech that Neil Findlay gave, in which he argued not only for that type of project but also for the Government to provide proper funding, rather than cutting funding, as the SNP Government has done. The SNP preaches about sectarianism—we all support action in that regard—but then it cuts the budgets.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not.

One of the most powerful speeches in the debate was by John Finnie. He spoke as a former police officer, as a football supporter and as somebody who supported the original legislation in 2011. He was right to express concerns about the minister’s contribution at the start of the debate, which underlined the point that I made, which is that there is an attitude on the part of some people in the SNP that football fans are second-class citizens.

John Finnie made a lot of powerful points about how we should move the debate forward if repeal is successful tonight.

I will sum up. Johann Lamont talked about the real world. The fact is that, in the real world, the 2012 act has been a failure. It has completely failed to tackle bigotry and religious intolerance. It has been unfair in targeting football fans. It is a legislative disaster and is completely illiberal. Not only that, on the SNP’s watch, we have seen worthwhile community projects that tackle anti-sectarianism being cut. Therefore, at tonight’s vote, MSPs should show the football act the red card.