Scottish Parliament, 23 June 2011

355 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

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

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of motion S4M-00377, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, to treat the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was introduced in Parliament on 16 June. Rule 9.21 of the Parliament’s standing orders provides that bills may be considered under emergency procedure. I propose that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill be considered under the emergency procedure, under rule 9.21.

The reasons for considering the bill under the emergency procedure were discussed at the Justice Committee when I appeared before it earlier this week, and there has been significant media coverage of the issue, but I hope that it is helpful to Parliament for me to set out the Government’s reasons for proposing that the bill be considered under the emergency procedure. I make it clear that the Government does not make the proposal lightly and we do not propose that the process should be used as a matter of course. However, we believe that the bill is exceptional and justifies the use of the emergency procedure.

The bill is a specific response to a particular problem that was brought into sharp focus at football matches and on our televisions earlier this year. I was ashamed to witness such behaviour and I am sure that my views are shared by many in the chamber. The Government reacted quickly to those events by calling a football summit and thereafter establishing the joint action group, which is addressing a wider range of actions and strategies to tackle sectarianism and offensive behaviour over the longer term. The group will report to ministers in July. However, the Government believes that we need to move even faster than that. We believe that it is right that we should give a clear signal to the police, the courts, the football authorities and the clubs, and to the fans and the wider public, that offensive and sectarian behaviour around football matches is simply not acceptable. It is time to end this blight on our national game.

We also believe that it is right that we tackle the wider issue of people sending threatening communications. The scenes at the old firm game were bad enough, but when they were followed by hateful and vitriolic posting on the internet and by the sending of bombs and bullets through the mail, it was clear that we had to act, and act quickly. We believe that the bill must be in place for the start of the new season so that the law is clarified, the police are given additional tools to deal with such behaviour and everyone is clear about our intentions and determination to deal with the issue right from the outset of the season.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am approaching my last paragraph.

I welcome the support that we have had for the bill, most notably from the police, who will have to respond to the legislation and deal with offenders. The police are clear that we should have the new powers in place by 23 July. That is why we have brought forward the bill quickly and why we are asking Parliament to respond accordingly. It is a short bill, and it is clear and focused on the particular issues that I have outlined. Of course, it is only the first part of a wider and long-term strategy. I therefore call on the Parliament to support my proposal that the bill be taken under the emergency procedure.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

I rise on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party to oppose the motion in the name of Roseanna Cunningham. I make it clear that the Scottish Labour Party deplores any form of sectarianism. Of course we support the introduction of legislation to tackle the root of that very serious issue, but we must recognise the Parliament’s role in interrogating whether proposed legislation will be effective and will stand up to scrutiny. Proposals should be tested at every possible opportunity.

The way in which the Government introduced the legislation is unacceptable. We are concerned that we are not being afforded the opportunity to produce effective legislation. Is the Government suggesting that wider Scotland should not be given the opportunity to interrogate the legislation at every opportunity? The Government must realise that this is not its Parliament—it is the people’s Parliament. People in wider Scotland deserve their say and to be afforded that opportunity.

Given the importance of the issue, we propose using the recess period to give additional opportunities to scrutinise the proposals and to allow for proper consideration of the bill. That would enter into the spirit of what the Government’s business manager, Bruce Crawford, suggested in a recent article in the Sunday Herald, in which he called for more focused opportunities for pre and post-legislative scrutiny and committee inquiries. The Government should enter into the spirit of what it has proposed in press articles.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Why does the member think that there should be such a different attitude in England when Alex McLeish gets death threats because he is going to another club? Does the member think that the Westminster Parliament will rush through emergency legislation to deal with that?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

We need to focus on the issues and major challenges that we face in Scotland. There should be opportunities for people in wider Scotland to contribute to what is an important debate. The process that the Government is following will not give the people’s Parliament that opportunity.

For once, I agreed with the First Minister when he said in his victory speech that the Scottish National Party does not hold a “monopoly on wisdom”. That was confirmed following the appearance of the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs at the Justice Committee on Tuesday. It is time for the Government to recognise that this is the people’s Parliament and to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I rise to oppose the motion. The First Minister told the country in his victory speech in May that the SNP had

“a majority of the seats, but not a monopoly on wisdom”.

He was right, but today those words ring hollow, because the SNP is attempting to use its majority to circumvent, marginalise and just plain ignore the wisdom of the Parliament, outside experts and the people of Scotland.

We are being asked to agree to a process that will result in two new criminal offences being created in slightly more than a week. We are being asked to create a new law with no formal consultation and no time for expert evidence or detailed examination of whether a law is needed, where it might be needed, how it will work, what it will cost or what wider implications it might have. There is not an emergency. We do not have wide, gaping holes in our laws that mean that criminals are getting off scot free. We have not suddenly discovered a new crime that needs to be addressed instantly, and it is disrespectful to the people of Scotland to suggest otherwise.

Parliamentary process is not meant to be played with at the Government’s whim. Pre-legislative scrutiny, evidence taking and committee consideration are not meant to be an inconvenience to Government; they are there to ensure that every decision that we make and every new law that we create is in the best interests of the people whom we are elected to represent.

Our code of conduct states:

“Members are accountable for their decisions and actions to the Scottish people. They should consider issues on their merits, taking account of the views of others.”

By using its majority to force through the bill at breakneck speed, the Government is not allowing members to consider the issue on its merits or to take account of the views of others. However, I can guarantee that we will still be held accountable by the people of Scotland. Making new laws is not a process that should be rushed. It is the most serious thing that Parliament does, and Parliament should be given time to do it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

We in the Conservatives have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments that have been expressed by Paul Martin on behalf of Labour and Alison McInnes on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. However, we must recognise the political realities, which are that the Government is determined to enact a piece of legislation before the start of the new football season to address some of the problems that emerged in the course of the previous season.

That being the case, and given the Government’s majority in the Parliament, the choice before members is in reality between an expedited form of the ordinary bill procedure or using the emergency procedure and, as the cabinet secretary has proposed, having an emergency bill.

The difference between the two is simply this. If we had an expedited ordinary bill procedure, any amendments to the bill at stage 2 would be considered only by the members of the Justice Committee—nine members of the Parliament. If, however, we adopt the emergency bill procedure, stage 2 will be taken on the floor of the chamber and all members will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the issues.

Given the pace that the Government has determined for the legislation, it is vital that all members of the Parliament have the opportunity to consider and vote on amendments to the bill. In the circumstances, the process that the cabinet secretary proposes is therefore correct.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister tells us that it is time to end the blight of sectarianism. If members of this Parliament thought that the five sides of A4 that make up the bill would achieve that, we would want to see it passed quickly. However, I do not believe that these five sides of A4 will achieve that. Indeed, I go further: I think that there is a risk that the bill will do more harm than good.

When we legislate at such a pace, we make mistakes. It has happened before and it will happen again. If we let it happen with a bill that creates offences that could see people in prison for up to five years, there is a serious risk that, as has happened south of the border with other legislation, people will be convicted and imprisoned for trivial matters that we would not wish to see prosecuted. There is an additional risk that legislation that contains mistakes will result in people not being convicted—they will get through loopholes—when their behaviour has been serious.

If we get legislation such as this bill wrong, we will bring into disrepute the entire attempt to address sectarianism and wider hate crimes through legislation. We risk doing more harm than good if we pass legislation at this pace and do not take the time to iron out mistakes. Let us pause and take the time to hear from wider civic Scotland—as Paul Martin said—and to do our jobs as parliamentarians and scrutinise the Government’s legislation. When we have acted at this pace in the past, we have made mistakes, as anybody would. Let us not do the same with an issue as serious as this one.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I simply press the motion.

Business Motion

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S4M-00371, setting out the timetable for the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill be taken on the following days—

Stage 1: 23 June 2011; and

Stages 2 and 3: 29 June 2011.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00357, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on stage 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

First of all, I thank the Justice Committee for moving so quickly to take evidence on the bill, those who have submitted—and might still be in the process of submitting—written evidence and those who have given or will give oral evidence. I realise that everyone has had to respond quickly to enable us to put the legislation in place before the start of the new football season and I am sure that the whole Parliament will acknowledge the contribution that has been made externally so far.

I must start with the reasons for introducing the legislation and our urgency in doing so. A few weeks have passed but we must not forget where we were at the end of the last football season, when we were faced with some of the most shameful behaviour and incidents that have been seen in many years. Those scenes were broadcast and reported on repeatedly and seen throughout the world, and the disorder, the bigotry, the threats and, ultimately, the bullets and bombs through the post have shamed not only Scottish football but Scotland itself.

The bill is a direct response to those shameful incidents. It is short, sharp and aimed directly at the most immediate problems we face. We will face other, wider challenges in the longer term but the bill represents a proportionate response to an immediately serious issue.

Football is Scotland’s national game; it brings pleasure to millions and can be a very powerful force for good. Unfortunately, as the events of the last season have shown, it can also be where the bigoted attitudes and behaviours that we seek to eradicate are most visible and damaging. During the 2010-11 football season, some of those problems reached an intolerable level with sectarian and other offensive singing and chanting from supporters, misconduct by players and managers, death threats posted on the internet and live ammunition sent to prominent figures both directly and indirectly associated with football. When support for a football club is expressed through violence, when pride becomes bigotry and hatred and when rival supporters chant vile sectarian abuse at one another on the terraces, we cannot simply shake our heads and say, “This is the way it’s always been and the way it always will be”.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why does the Government want to pass a law that, according to the Law Society of Scotland,

“rather than being innovative, in many ways simply restates the law that already exists”?—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 June 2011; c 63.]

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

There are very good and specific reasons why this legislation is required. If the member had been able to listen to the Lord Advocate’s evidence at yesterday’s meeting of the Justice Committee, he would have heard them. I commend the Official Report of that meeting to him.

We do not intend to take the path of hopelessness and acceptance. Instead, we seek a path to a more hopeful and inclusive Scotland where the Government acts decisively to protect people from discrimination and hatred and to make our communities safer.

Some have suggested that the Government thinks that the bill on its own will eradicate sectarianism from Scottish football, but the proposed legislation is not a quick fix for the whole problem of sectarianism. It is specifically directed at dealing with some very ugly manifestations of sectarianism and is only one part of what will be a broader strategy of on-going and developing work.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Is the legislation specifically targeted at the two clubs in Scotland that are identified with sectarian chanting or does it encompass behaviour at other clubs? For example, I have seen my club drawn into this net and cannot think why.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The bill relates not to specific clubs but to behaviour. If such behaviour happens at other club grounds, it will be caught.

When the First Minister was re-elected on 18 May, he made it quite clear in his acceptance speech that

“We will not tolerate sectarianism, as a parasite in our national game of football or anywhere else in this society.”—[Official Report, 18 May 2011; c 32.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The minister said that the legislation will apply to other football clubs. Does she not realise that the pace at which the bill is being put through Parliament means that we have had no discussion or debate about whether it should address sectarian behaviour not just at football clubs but in our communities? That denies a problem that is much more widespread and affects more than football clubs.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

That is a nonsensical position to take. We are not denying the problem in Scotland; instead, the bill deals very specifically with its manifestation in football. We all realise that there is a bigger, much more deeply rooted problem that manifests itself in much wider parts of society, and the Government will continue to deal with that. Indeed, I have been given that specific task by the First Minister.

As I said, the bill is only one part of what will be a broader strategy. It provides for two new criminal offences, the first of which outlaws offensive behaviour that incites public disorder at football matches, when travelling to and from matches and when watching football in public areas and places such as pubs. The second outlaws threatening communications, and I will now say something about each.

Our primary intention with regard to offensive behaviour at football matches is to tackle behaviour that is likely to incite public disorder. Three forms of such behaviour are covered: expressing or stirring up hatred based on religious, racial, sexual or other grounds through, for example, sectarian singing or other offensive chanting; threatening behaviour; and any other behaviour that would be offensive to a reasonable person. Some commentators have attempted to divert attention from what the bill is obviously intended to cover by suggesting increasingly fanciful hypothetical situations that appear to bring the provisions into disrepute and I am delighted that the police, the prosecution service, the football authorities and others have welcomed the introduction of the offence, partly because of the clarity that it brings.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the minister give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I really need to get on.

The offence is not about criminalising the singing of national anthems or making the sign of the cross. The bill seeks to criminalise behaviour that is offensive and likely to incite public disorder. National anthems in and of themselves are expressions of national pride; they are not normally sung to stir up racial or ethnic hatred and cannot be considered offensive to a reasonable person.

That said, we have to be clear: that does not mean that bigots can misuse innocent songs and gestures for despicable purposes. We are no more listing banned songs than we are listing songs that are always acceptable, however deviously they might be used. As the Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Devine, said this week:

“Any sign, song, picture or whatever can be easily abused ... In themselves, the sign of the cross and the national anthem are noble and honourable expressions, but they can be manipulated for evil intent. Those who intentionally and malevolently exploit and corrupt such eminent symbols should be held to account.“

That point was made equally eloquently by the Lord Advocate yesterday to the Justice Committee, and I cannot agree more.

It has been suggested that the offence is not necessary and that existing offences such as breach of the peace are adequate to deal with the kind of behaviour that we are seeking to tackle at football matches. Indeed, I think that Willie Rennie made that very point.

I am, of course, aware that people are arrested and prosecuted for offensive and disorderly behaviour at football matches under the existing law. However, we are concerned that neither breach of the peace nor the offence of threatening and abusive behaviour is ideally suited to dealing with disorder at football matches—in particular, the sectarian and bigoted behaviour that can all too often provoke disorder. To prove that breach of the peace has been committed, it is necessary to establish that the accused’s behaviour would be likely to cause genuine alarm to a reasonable person, but proving that offensive sectarian chanting at a football match would cause alarm to a reasonable person will not always be straightforward. Given everything that happened last season, the link to public disorder is more straightforward.

There is an impression that the bill was made up in splendid isolation. That is absolutely not the case. We have benefited directly from the experience of prosecutors, police and others with hands-on experience of tackling disorder at football matches. When Chief Superintendent Andy Bates, the match commander at Ibrox, and Chief Superintendent Gill Imery, the match commander at Tynecastle, say that they believe that the bill will benefit them in policing difficult football matches, we can be confident that we are getting it right.

Of course, not all the problems with Scottish football last year took place at or around football matches. The live ammunition that was sent to prominent public figures who are connected in some way with Scottish football, the death threats to Celtic manager Neil Lennon that appeared on the internet, and the sectarian bile that was posted on social networks and blogs all go beyond what happens on the terraces. To address that, the bill introduces a new offence of making threatening communications.

The offence covers threats of serious violence that are intended to cause fear or alarm and threats that are made with the intent of inciting religious hatred. They include implied threats, such as images that depict serious harm to an individual.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister has made it clear several times that the bill refers to “hatred”. In previous hate crime legislation—to use the shorthand description—the Government used the term “malice and ill-will”. Are “hatred” and “malice and ill-will” identical in meaning? Will they be interpreted identically in the courts? Is “hatred” a wider concept than “malice and ill-will” and, if so, in what way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am afraid that I must advise Mr Harvie that nobody can predict exactly how the courts will interpret any phrase. One difficulty that we are in is that some court judgments have interpreted even breach of the peace in a way that is not recognisable to some of us. I am sure that members who heard that football fans chanting racist abuse at a black player was discovered not to be a breach of the peace, according to the court, would find that surprising, to say the least. When a case is in court, we are in the court’s hands.

The threatening communications offence applies to threats that are made through the mail, on the internet and on banners, posters and T-shirts, and to other threats whether they are written, images or sound recordings. However, it does not restrict a person’s legitimate freedom of speech, including the right to criticise or comment on religion or non-religious beliefs, even in harsh terms. The offence is concerned solely with threats.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for her comments on what the offence does not cover and on freedom of speech. Is she open to including a freedom-of-speech provision? Outside bodies have suggested that—to many members, I am sure.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We have not considered that aspect—

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Why not?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I say with the greatest respect that that is because the bill as drafted excludes speech. That is why the proposal looks as if it would be extra to requirements.

The second offence is not restricted to football. The high-profile threats that have been made to prominent figures who are connected with Scottish football have highlighted the issue, but no matter the context in which such threats are made, there is no place in Scotland for people who threaten and intimidate their fellow citizens in such a way.

The measures in the bill are a proportionate response to a serious problem. We must act quickly to restore faith in our national game, which matters to millions of Scots. I am reassured that Stewart Regan, the Scottish Football Association’s chief executive, and Neil Doncaster, the Scottish Premier League’s chief executive, agree that measures should be in place before the new football season starts and not come in halfway through it or later.

We expect the offences in the bill to be enforced and prosecuted. Through our record investment in the Scottish police service to secure 1,000 extra officers for the front line, the resources are available to ensure that enforcement happens. We are also working with the police service through the joint action group, which was established in March, to assess whether more is needed. We will not hesitate to ensure that resources are available, if gaps are identified. The group will report on 11 July.

Significant police resources and other resources are deployed on policing football. We know that more than 1,000 officers are required to police an old firm game and that arrests and prosecutions take place for offences at football. The new offences will make the job of Scotland’s police officers that bit easier. The offences will be not an added burden but further tools in the box.

Sectarianism, discrimination and prejudice are all completely unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur. As a society, we must stand united and do what we can to build a proud and confident nation in which everyone—regardless of their background—is welcomed. The measures in the bill are a significant initial step towards that goal.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 1 debate on the bill’s general principles. Scottish Labour recognises the scourge of sectarianism, particularly when it manifests itself in parcel bombs being sent to senior public figures, including a previous member of the Parliament. We recognise and condemn it as a stain on Scottish society when thousands of people sing songs against particular religious groups.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does James Kelly accept that seeking to delay the bill or such legislation sends out the message that sectarianism is acceptable?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I must say that that is absolute nonsense. I have just got to my feet, and the first thing that I have done is to make it absolutely clear that Scottish Labour condemns sectarianism without fear and without favour.

I will outline my thoughts on the bill, including the truncated timetable. There is a case for introducing legislation to create an offence that deals with sectarianism and for examining the gaps in relation to breach of the peace and internet crimes. However, that case is very much work in progress.

I congratulate the Justice Committee on its work this week to interrogate the bill and I welcome the Government ceding to Labour demands for committee scrutiny of the bill, because it has flagged up important issues.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

In fairness, what the Justice Committee did was cross-party.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I recognise that cross-party work was done, but I am sure that Ms Grahame concedes that that came after I and my Labour colleague on the committee made representations to her.

As was said in the discussion of the emergency bill motion, the timescale for the bill is too short. The arguments in favour of taking the bill under the emergency procedure have been flimsy. The Justice Committee heard the concerns of the Law Society of Scotland, the Church of Scotland and Celtic about the truncated timetable. The football clubs were somewhat surprised by the bill. In recent weeks, the SNP Government has told us that one reason for introducing the bill as emergency legislation was that the clubs had asked for it and wanted it in place by the start of the new season. However, as the committee heard yesterday, the clubs did not ask for the bill or for it to be treated as an emergency. Indeed, the Rangers representative said that the bill’s publication was something of a surprise.

The Lord Advocate told The Times—not a parliamentary committee or Parliament—that Parliament was there to pass laws and that we should get on with passing laws. I say to him that Parliament is not “The X Factor”. A rush to legislate does not serve Parliament or Scotland well. We should have taken more time to consider the bill.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

There is no doubt that the incidents that we have seen have been escalating. If the member thinks that we are going too quickly in passing legislation before the start of the new season, what kind of incident would make him think again?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I point out to Derek Mackay that the shambolic appearance of the minister at the Justice Committee on Tuesday led to the confusion in yesterday’s newspaper headlines, which suggested that someone making the sign of the cross or singing the national anthem would result in a prosecution. That is the result of rushing to legislate—[Interruption.]

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

More time requires to be taken in order that we get the definitions correct, particularly in section 1, which deals with offences around football matches. Police, prosecutors and the public need certainty about those definitions. When the first football game of the season comes, the police officers who are at the grounds will need to know what songs and gestures are covered by the act.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, I will not give way. I have taken plenty of interventions and I need to make progress.

A specific framework must be put in place so that people have that certainty come the start of the season.

Also at the Justice Committee, the Lord Advocate explained why he felt that the laws relating to breach of the peace are ineffective. He cited case law in which alleged breaches of the peace had been committed on domestic premises but the matter was not pursued by the court. It is, therefore, a surprise that offences that take place on domestic premises are not covered by the bill. I feel that that should be examined. When a football match is on, more people gather in homes across Scotland to watch it, and there have been instances in my constituency of people committing antisocial behaviour on domestic premises because of actions around football matches.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I need to make progress.

The definition of “regulated football matches” also needs to be reconsidered. For example, the bill does not cover highlights of football matches. Old firm games often kick off early and the highlights are still running throughout the evening, when people have consumed more alcohol, which can lead to trouble in pubs.

On the internet issues, the minister must provide clarification. The bill sets out two categories of offence. Category B deals specifically with religion, but category A is much more wide ranging. The minister seemed somewhat surprised when that was pointed out at the committee on Tuesday.

Inadequate resources are being allocated to support the bill. As Les Gray of the Scottish Police Federation said, the money that is being allocated will not scratch the surface. The financial memorandum states that police support for the bill will be met from existing resources. We are told that we need to pass the bill as emergency legislation in time for the start of the new football season, but the financial memorandum shows that no additional police resources are being committed to support it.

The issue of sectarianism is wide ranging and requires much further consideration beyond the bill. We need to consider what we can do in our education system and how we can work with groups such as Nil by Mouth. It appears to me that the Scottish National Party has come somewhat late to the tackling sectarianism agenda. It was quiet and complacent about it for much of the previous session. If the bill is to be passed at stage 3, consideration must be given to a sunset clause.

Parliament has a duty to make a difference and we have a job to do in getting right the legislation to tackle sectarian bile and in stating that it is unacceptable. If we get the legislation wrong, that will result in chaos and confusion. So far, the SNP’s performance on this has been short of the mark; it has a big six days ahead. Scotland deserves better and it is time for the SNP to get its act together.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We are all agreed on the need to tackle the problem of sectarianism in our society. It may seem an obvious point, but it is important that whatever disagreements there may be on aspects of the bill are looked at in that context. None of us wants to see our society blighted by that problem in the future. In the limited time that I have available to me this morning, I will focus on three areas of concern: first, the lack of consultation; secondly, the uncertain nature of some of the offences in the bill and the unintended consequences; and thirdly, the wider problem of sectarianism in small parts of our society.

Concerns have been raised in a number of quarters, both by the Justice Committee and by other individuals and organisations, about the speed with which the bill is being pushed through Parliament. Given the nature of the events that we witnessed at the end of the last football season, it is understandable that the Government wants to move swiftly to address the problem of sectarianism. We have seen some very ugly scenes plastered across our television screens and newspapers in recent months; however, we should not pretend that the problems are new. We should be wary of falling into a pattern of legislating to suit short-term media headlines rather than finding long-term solutions to Scotland’s problems. Legislation can make a difference, but we have a responsibility to ensure that it is fair, workable and consistent.

There are also concerns about how the legislation might be interpreted. For example, could a republican Scot claim that someone singing “God Save the Queen” was engaging in offensive behaviour under section 1? Despite what the minister has said this morning, neither she nor the Lord Advocate has been able or willing to rule out that possibility, which I still have concerns about. It would be ridiculous if we passed legislation that had the consequence of criminalising those who sing their national anthem.

Even more than is usual for legislation on criminal behaviour, much will depend on the police’s and the procurators fiscal’s interpretation of the law; however, the ambiguity that is allowed for in the bill will make their job extremely difficult. What about songs that have more than one set of lyrics but have been known to be offensive in the past? What about football supporters humming or whistling the tunes of offensive songs without singing any of the words? What about songs that do not refer to religious aggravation but instead celebrate events such as the Ibrox disaster or the death of former prominent players? Such songs may not be examples of sectarianism, but they are equally likely to incite hatred and are equally vile in tone.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Does the member not accept that he has just outlined precisely the reasons why one must not go down the road of listing songs or excluding songs? That is exactly our argument.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

If the legislation is so uncertain that people do not know whether they are breaking the law, surely there is an argument for taking the time to consult to ensure that we get it right. The bill will clearly put a lot of additional responsibility on our police officers. That is no reason not to pass the bill, but it demands that we tread carefully before venturing down such an ambiguous path.

My third and final point is about my concerns for our wider society and what we should be doing to tackle the problem at an earlier stage. The problem of sectarianism in parts of west central Scotland is much bigger and wider than just sectarianism at football matches. The reality is that young men at football matches act in that way as a result of the conditioning that starts at an early age. Certain parts of society—admittedly small—in west Scotland have promoted that culture, including partly through our education system. The segregation of our young people brings them up to believe that the two communities should be kept separate. That is something that I know a little about, having been brought up and educated in the system of west central Scotland—the same system that produced many, if not all, of those who have been responsible for the shocking behaviour that we have witnessed in recent months.

I am a former pupil of Kilwinning academy—a school that I am incredibly proud of and which gave me an excellent education, got me into university and probably taught me more about life than many other schools might have done. However, the school—or, more accurately, the system—conditioned me into thinking that there was a difference between those of us who went to Kilwinning academy and those who went to the Catholic school around the corner, St Michael’s academy.

Yes, my school was a co-educational, comprehensive, non-denominational school. Yes, I remember that there were some pupils who originated from other parts of the world, but the school was predominately white and Protestant. I remember only one Catholic classmate or, rather, only one classmate who was prepared to admit to being Catholic.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I have quite a lot to say in the time available to me.

Every morning, the buses from the Garnock valley would bus the pupils past Kilwinning academy to the Catholic school around the corner. In my early, naive years, I would ask my parents to explain why the buses drove past a school that I thought was perfectly adequate to go to another school. Unfortunately, others at my school were less naive. When the old firm played or on dates of historical importance, I clearly remember the stones and eggs that were thrown at the buses ferrying pupils past my school. The pupils in the buses would spit at my classmates as they walked to school. Of course, the school tried to take tough action against those responsible, but when so many are involved in such behaviour, that is extremely difficult.

The education system in that part of Scotland is effectively the state-sponsored conditioning of those sectarianism attitudes. I say that as someone who believes that as a Christian country we should do more to promote Christian values in our young people and to support religious education in schools. In those small pockets of west central Scotland, those attitudes are being entrenched at home and in the wider community. It was not just football supporters or pubs that were segregated in that way. More respectable institutions such as rotary clubs and golf clubs were split on religious grounds.

However, we should not be surprised by that, when in west central Scotland we allow our children to be educated into believing that there is something so different about the two religions that pupils cannot be allowed to share the same school building. It is little wonder that parts of our society continue to segregate themselves in later life when that is what they are taught when they are at school.

The Government has indicated its willingness to listen to parties from across the chamber and to govern in a consensual manner. I hope that the minister will reflect on the concerns that have been expressed today and ensure that the bill is as fair, workable and consistent as possible.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We move to the open debate. I am sorry to tell members that we are extremely tight for time and that I will have to restrict what would otherwise have been six-minute speeches to five-minute speeches.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I must not take it personally, Presiding Officer, but every time I stand up there is a warning.

I accept David McLetchie’s argument on the pragmatic approach, and the minister’s good purposes. That said, I have some comments to make. For new members, I say that usually in a stage 1 debate I would speak as convener, but this is not a committee stage 1 debate because the business bureau did not refer the bill to my committee. In passing, I say to James Kelly that this is not a competition about which political party wanted scrutiny; scrutiny came from across the parties. As convener of the Justice Committee, I made my view on that clear at the beginning, when the bill was introduced.

If members will forgive me, I will speak as convener, even in these unusual circumstances. I thank the committee staff, the official report—which published the oral evidence for us, which was helpful to us and, indeed, to the minister—all the witnesses, including the minister and her officials, and the Lord Advocate. Not least, though, I thank committee members for attempting at breakneck speed to give some semblance of disinterested scrutiny to the proposed legislation.

The Lord Advocate said in his contribution at the committee yesterday that draft guidance for clubs and the police—which no one has mentioned so far—will be published on Friday. The guidance will, I hope, be extremely helpful. However, I have to say to the Lord Advocate that to imply that because it is a short, sharp bill, it should not be contentious or flawed, is not a compelling argument from him or the minister. If there were ever a one-section bill—I do not know whether there ever could be one—it might be extremely contentious, so that is not a principle that one can rely on.

Many witnesses, particularly the Law Society of Scotland, the Church of Scotland and the Equality Network, were extremely unhappy about the use of emergency procedure. When I put it to him that the proposed legislation had been well trailed in the media, Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network quite rightly said:

“We knew that it was coming but I have to say that when we saw it on Friday morning it came as quite a surprise to us—it was quite different from what we were expecting.”

I replied:

“That is a fair response.”

There is a big difference between trailing a policy and having specific legislation before us.

An interesting comment was made by the representative from the Church of Scotland, who compared the bill with the legislation to ban smoking:

“Law works at its best when the majority of the population think that it represents a collective will ... Measures that have been effective, such as the smoking ban, work not because they are enforced but because the passage of the legislation was taken to mean that people supported it—it was seen as the collective position.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 June 2011; c 88 and 82.]

That is a fair argument.

Representatives of the clubs, the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Premier League confirmed that they had not sought legislation but that their concerns had been somewhat assuaged after the briefing by the Lord Advocate yesterday morning, particularly with regard to the guidance.

I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for that. I am also grateful to him for distinguishing from breach of the peace—raised earlier by Willie Rennie—which is one of the criminal offences currently utilised in cases of aggressive threatening behaviour inter alia at football matches. I look forward to the response from the Law Society, which took a distinctly different view.

On balance and in fairness, I should say that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland fully supported the legislation.

No doubt others will deal with the funding arrangements.

Questions that have arisen on specific sections of the bill will have to be addressed at stages 2 and 3. An example is section 1(5)(b). I will not quote it—members can see it—but does it exempt public houses showing a match on a widescreen when only one team’s supporters are present? Does it apply to supporters’ club rooms? The Lord Advocate could not answer that question when I asked him about it at yesterday’s meeting, when he said that he would give it consideration. We need to know about that, because it is a serious issue.

The provisions in sections 2(4)(a) and 2(4)(b) seemed wide to me, and I did not fully understand the explanation. I may be dull of wit and mind but I hope that someone will explain those provisions to me because they may be open to challenge under freedom of movement legislation. No doubt that will be explained in due course, during the amendment stages.

Section 6(2), which another member addressed earlier, excludes unrecorded speech. I ask members to look at what is said in the interesting submission from the Equality Network about why that is excluded, because I believe that it is not excluded in other, comparable legislation.

We all wish to see a reduction in sectarian violence but if, as predicted, the bill proceeds to stage 3 and is passed, I give notice that I intend to lodge an amendment or amendments at stage 2—and possibly at stage 3, if my stage 2 amendments are rejected—to require either a review or a sunset clause after two seasons of football, because the very people who should be engaged in this debate, namely the supporters and the fans, have not been engaged. We have not heard from them.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I acknowledge the convener of the Justice Committee’s even-handed account of the work done by the committee in the past couple of days. She is quite right—and the minister knows—that although this is a short bill, as today’s debate has demonstrated, big issues lie behind the words on the paper.

Legislation worthy of enforcement demands proper public scrutiny and a review by members of this Parliament in order that we can give knowing consent and authority to the law. The minister relies on the authorities to support her position, although I have seldom heard those in authority decline what appear to be additional powers.

In the context of anti-sectarian legislation, the Justice Committee, on behalf of Parliament, has spent two short meetings taking evidence, debating complex issues and reviewing proposals deemed a priority by Government. The process has been sobering. It has demonstrated starkly the frustrations faced by members of the public, and others already referred to, in trying to feed into our considerations. As witnesses representing interests as diverse as the Church of Scotland, the Equality Network and national football authorities and clubs indicated, there has been little or, in the case of the clubs, no attempt to consult on the proposals. One witness noted that such a course of action was unheard of.

There is a view that failure to give the general public the opportunity properly to consider the bill over a reasonable period means that the community might have no sense of ownership of the bill or confidence that it can deliver its stated aims. That is crucial when we consider that we pride ourselves on supporting the principle of policing by consent. If, as has been suggested during the past two days, elements of the proposals alienate or criminalise a section of our community unnecessarily because the legislation was poorly prepared, we will regret the unseemly haste that has been demonstrated.

Members have identified the weaknesses in the bill. It is striking that only the Government and the people who will be tasked with enforcing the legislation on the Government’s behalf have spoken enthusiastically in support of the bill, without acknowledging the criticisms. Academics Dr Sarah Christie and Dr David McArdle left us in no doubt that more effective enforcement of the current legislation would be a more appropriate response, and their view was reinforced by the Law Society of Scotland.

Fewer than 130 football banning orders are current, after four years of prosecutions. In my opinion, that indicates a lack of universal commitment in respect of our current difficulties. Indeed, one of our witnesses opined that elements of our judiciary

“see banning orders as a regime that was developed down south to deal with a peculiarly English problem. One of the sheriffs said, ‘It is an English act with a kilt on it.’ It is of limited utility in Scotland”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 June 2011; c 61.]

I think not.

Our witnesses gave of their time and energy to offer their views at very short notice. Many more individuals, by means of e-mail and written submissions, reported grave concern that a police officer would be required in the heat of action to establish the difference between an offence under the bill and a joke, proselytising, free speech or satire—and would likely have to do so in the glare of the media and crowd attention. That is a tall order for anyone. As a result of those concerns, two Christian organisations are going to court to attempt to prevent the progress of the bill.

Our witnesses from football clubs said that although they had attended a highly publicised summit the announcement of the bill had come as a surprise. They were briefed on the proposal only immediately before the Justice Committee’s meeting—a week before the bill is due to become law. A Government that displays cavalier disregard for basic principles creates danger. We need wisdom and prudence, not tough talk and grandstanding. The vast majority of football supporters deserve to be treated with respect. Sections 1 to 4 will not produce a suitable or proportionate response to the problems of sectarianism.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I invite the minister to display her skills in openness, accessibility and listening and to go away and think seriously about the reservations that have been expressed. The Scottish Police Federation said:

“the financial memorandum is way off the mark”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 June 2011; c 38.]

Given the reduction in policing and the use of stewards in our football grounds in the interests of cutting costs, I hope that we will think again.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will make a few general comments, specifically on policing, and I will pick up on evident misunderstandings on the part of some members.

I am disappointed that Graeme Pearson thinks that there is not universal commitment to tackling offensive behaviour at football matches and threatening communications. That is not my understanding; I think that there is public support for tackling hate crime associated with football and I think that there is public support for the criminal justice system and its ability to enforce the bill and other legislation.

There are genuine and heartfelt concerns about the consultation process, but the public understand that we need to act on the matter, and that is what has happened. Members heard about the evidence that has been taken. I will talk about the evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation. I am a former official of the Scottish Police Federation and I have to say that the federation often comes from a slightly different perspective. However, it welcomes the powers in the bill and, as Mr Pearson rightly said, spoke with enthusiasm about them. That is important. The police witnesses were content with the timeframe.

On the resources, the figures are in the financial memorandum. Les Gray said that the financial memorandum is “way off the mark”, but that should be put in the context of what Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan said—much as I would like stronger powers for the Scottish Police Federation, Mr Corrigan holds the weight in such matters.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I am sure that the member has studied the financial memorandum. Does he agree that the resources to support the bill will be met from existing resources and that no additional police resources will be put in to support the bill?

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will address the member’s point in my next comment, because I was about to speak about the difference in emphasis between what Mr Gray and ACC Corrigan said about the finances. ACC Corrigan talked about using a “reasonable number” of officers. As Mr Pearson understands, every event is risk assessed and the assessment relates to the resources—and all the implications of that. ACC Corrigan went on to say that it is not about tripling the number of officers—I think that his comment followed Mr Gray’s comments and were made in the context of talk about the heavy campaign on the control of alcohol in football grounds, which by its nature required a police presence. The bill will require a targeted presence.

It is also important to recall that Mr Corrigan has said elsewhere that he would adopt a “preventative” approach, which involves publicising the issue. When that happened at the most recent old firm game, there was a marked reduction in the instances of sectarian singing.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member think that there is a particular issue to do with policing pubs in which football is watched, in relation to establishing which games are being watched and whether people are actually watching the game? Does he accept that, in the initial stages, a deal of police resource will be required to enable the police to go into pubs where there might be disorder?

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

With respect, that happens at the moment. I am a regular attender at football matches, and public houses are often visited by officers in considerable numbers who are dealing with other matters. That is happening in any case. It is about the difference between being reactive and being proactive. I think that ACC Corrigan was emphasising that the mere promotion of the legislation would be sufficient to address the issue.

On resources to tackle threatening communications, it was fascinating to hear what ACC Corrigan said about how gang violence in Glasgow is being dealt with by police cadets who have knowledge of social media. In any case, there are resources to deal with internet crime.

I want to talk about three other matters that I think are important, which other members mentioned.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Yes indeed.

The question is whether the proposals are necessary, legitimate and proportional. I think that they are necessary, as has been evidenced. I asked a simple question of the Lord Advocate yesterday. I asked him whether he thinks, as the police do, that the bill will fill a gap in the legislation. He said yes.

Is the bill legitimate? Certainly, everyone should welcome the aim of strengthening protection against criminal acts that are carried out in the name of prejudice. Is it proportional? It most certainly is. Guidance will be issued. I commend the bill and the scrutiny that is on-going.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Offensive behaviour at football affects everyone in society, as many members said, whether we are football fans or not.

The sectarian and religious hatred at football grounds that the bill aims to tackle is not confined to people of a particular religion or faith, as members said. My cousin, like me, is a Scottish Pakistani of the Muslim faith but, unlike me, he is a passionate supporter of Rangers Football Club and has attended many matches in his time. Members who are familiar with old firm security will be aware that the police do their very best to keep fans separated for as long as possible, but there inevitably comes a point when fans meet and converge, and sometimes violence occurs.

My cousin once told me that he happened to be walking back from an old firm match during one of those unfortunate times when violence broke out. He did his best to avoid the mêlée, but he told me that he was confronted by a rival fan and asked whether he was a Protestant, although that word was not used. He looked down, stared at himself and mumbled back, “Actually, I’m a Muslim.” The young man replied, “Don’t get cheeky. Are you a Protestant Muslim or a Catholic Muslim?” Perhaps that is a funny point but, unfortunately, the story simply reiterates the point that sectarianism goes far beyond the constraints of religion, which we often restrict it to.

I wish to address briefly some concerns that many members have made in the debate and over the past few days and weeks.

Many members have quite correctly commented on the haste that the bill is being dealt with. I have no doubt at all that, in an ideal world, we would have liked as much time as possible for consultation on this important bill, but a balance of priorities must be struck. Every member should cast their mind back to where they were when they heard the news about Neil Lennon, Paul McBride QC and Trish Godman, who is a former colleague of many members, being sent parcel bombs through the post. Scotland was numb. As a society, we felt that the rivalry and posturing had gone far too far, and there was a clear indication from the people that they expected something to be done about the matter now.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I do not have enough time. This will be a quick five minutes, unfortunately.

It has been reiterated time and again that the bill does not intend to be a magic bullet for the problems that we face, and it will not eradicate in an instant all offensive and hate-driven behaviour on our football terraces. However, it is an indicator of our resolve to send out a strong message that, as parliamentarians, we hear the cries of the people and are taking their concerns with the utmost seriousness, which they deserve.

Some members have suggested that the nature of the offences that will be created is unclear. I draw their attention to the Conservative Party’s very own Paul McBride QC, who said:

“As legislation goes, it’s simple as pie—you don't even need to be legally qualified to understand it.”

As one of those non-legally qualified people to whom Mr McBride alludes, I can attest that, although the bill may not be pie-like in its simplicity, it is not nearly as complex as some members suggest.

Yesterday’s sensationalised headlines about national anthems and religious gestures were simply unhelpful. Mr Lamont, who initiated questioning on the matter, must know better. He will be fully aware that there is the element of discretion in relation to many offences, be it breach of the peace or otherwise. Officers and the courts must take into account all the relevant facts, the details and, most important, the context. I do not believe for a moment that Mr Lamont thinks that the various authorities would ever overstep that mark. In fact, given his legal background as a former solicitor, it is inconceivable that he does not know all that. Perhaps he simply awoke that morning feeling slightly mischievous, or perhaps he was putting forward his credentials for a certain soon-to-be-vacant post in his party.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have only a minute and a half left. Okay, go ahead then—you have 10 seconds.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

The member has mentioned a Queen’s counsel and Mr Lamont, who is a former lawyer. Does he disagree with the Law Society of Scotland? It has stated that the bill

“seeks not to replace or clarify the existing law but to add another layer of law, which is not always the best way to approach things.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 June 2011; c 66.]

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I take to be more important the views of the Lord Advocate, who has said that the bill will plug any gaps that exist and, on top of that, the views of the police, who are, it should be remembered, on the front line picking up broken bottles and taking people to hospitals in the aftermath of many matches. They say that the legislation must be brought in now.

When we took evidence from police officials on Tuesday this week, ACC Campbell Corrigan and Les Gray told us that they were confident that they could train their officers in sufficient time for the start of the season. Any member who attempts to undermine that confidence in our police is extremely unhelpful.

There are a number of other points that I would like to make, but I can see that I am out of time.

I agree with the convener of the Justice Committee, Christine Grahame, that some kind of review structure should be in place for the legislation.

Football is our national game. We should be proud of it, and we should not feel the need to cringe when we hear it mentioned on the evening news. Let us not pass up the opportunity to start the new season with a different tone on the matter.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

As many members have said, every single one of us wants to see an end to sectarianism. We want to see an end to all discrimination, prejudice and abuse, but the bill will not achieve that. Laws do not operate in a vacuum. If we need a new law to help to deal with these issues—and, given time, we may find that we do—it must be created in concert with a wider approach. Attempting to legislate without that context is as unwise as it is futile.

We cannot tackle sectarianism from the top down. We need a joined-up approach that involves people from different communities throughout Scotland. I welcome the work that is being done with the joint action group on football, and look forward to reading its final report and seeing what recommendations it makes on what can be done to prevent a repeat of the dreadful scenes that we saw earlier this year. Sadly, such scenes have been a fact of life in Scotland for more than 100 years. However, I am forced to ask why the Government went to the trouble of setting up the joint action group if it is not willing to wait and hear what it has to say. Yesterday, The Scotsman opined that the

“Unseemly rush leaves Scots law open to ridicule”.

Not one member is saying that sectarian behaviour or any abusive or prejudiced behaviour should be tolerated, but such behaviour is already illegal. The bill, which the Government would prefer no one to look at too closely, will not criminalise anything that is not already illegal. It will not make the existing law clearer or give the police any additional powers to deal with sectarianism or other abusive behaviour. As far as I can see, it will create more confusion, more inconsistency and more questions.

Before any law is passed in the Parliament, there are questions that have to be answered. We are usually able to explore the issues during weeks of scrutiny and evidence and expert advice taking. However, as we have seen, the Government is determined that Parliament will not be allowed its rightful role in the legislative process. I still want the questions answered, and the people of Scotland deserve to have them answered. Therefore, I will ask the minister those questions.

What evidence is there that there are gaps in our existing laws that need to be closed? How many people have committed crimes aggravated by religious prejudice but have not been punished because our existing laws do not cover the offences? Could the scenes that we witnessed earlier this year have been prevented if existing laws were enforced more consistently? How many prosecutions could be brought under the new offences? How many of those prosecutions could not be made under the current law? How many breach of the peace charges with a religious prejudice aggravation have been brought, only for the aggravation to be dropped in order to make the prosecution?

In what circumstances will the new law make singing “God Save the Queen”, “Rule, Britannia!” or “Flower of Scotland” illegal? Should people not have the right to know what they can sing without being arrested? Should people not know where they can sing without being arrested? Why should singing a certain song be a crime if it is sung at a football ground but not if it is sung on a march?

How are the police meant to determine whether a person is on a journey to or from a match? In what circumstances could a person be described as being on a journey to a match, if they have no intention of attending that match?

What situations are covered by the provision on a match that is being televised? Is a hospital common room or a mobile phone in a park covered?

What is the definition of a “serious injury”? What is the definition of “stirring up” religious hatred?

Does the communications aspect cover what is written on a flag or on a person? At what point does speech become recorded speech? What if a private conversation in a public place is caught on tape? How does the Government expect the new law to be policed?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I have no time, as I have many questions for the minister.

If the financial memorandum is indeed “way off”, how can the public be confident that there will be adequate resources to enforce the new law? How can the Government defend passing a new law that will require test cases to define its extent?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give me 10 seconds?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No.

What consideration has the Government given to the difficulties with gathering evidence for crimes that have been committed abroad and with getting witnesses and suspects to Scotland? How is a defence of reasonableness defined?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I say to Ms Grahame and others that Alison McInnes’s comments could be debated if we were given more time to discuss the bill.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Can the Government guarantee that a newspaper that reprints a death threat from the internet or elsewhere could not be caught out by the reckless provision in section 5?

I see that I am running out of time, so I will leave it at just 30 unanswered questions for now. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions, as do the people of Scotland, I am sure.

I am reminded of something that a wise man once said—I am sure that he must be a wise man, as he is a former MSP, and he went on to be political adviser to the First Minister. When he was considering sectarianism in the Justice 2 Committee in 2002, Duncan Hamilton said:

“it is wrong to legislate simply because we have the power to do so and to assume that that legislation will make an improvement”.—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 11 December 2002; c 2449.]

I could not agree more.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

If the bill is about sending a strong and clear message from the Parliament that sectarianism is not acceptable in any shape or form, I congratulate the Government on initiating that message. I strenuously support its aim, but I strongly oppose its rushing the bill through Parliament in the way that it is doing.

Like others, I have heard and read what commentators, professionals and people on the front line are saying about denying civic Scotland’s input to the legislative process. Paul Martin spoke for me when he offered that Labour Party members would work through the recess to address the issue with urgency, and I am disappointed that the Government has turned that offer down. James Kelly also spoke for me in everything that he said.

As others said, we are being asked to vote on many issues without anticipating what the unintended consequences might be. The Law Society of Scotland said that lack of consultation and use of the emergency bill procedure set a bad precedent. Similarly, others who gave oral evidence to the Justice Committee expressed very serious concern that there had been no prior consultation on the issues.

Probably like many other members, I have been sent an e-mail from the Christian Institute and CARE—Christian Action Research and Education—advising us of the legal challenge that they propose and the QC opinion that they have secured, which sets out a variety of matters such as failure to consult stating legal precedents, European convention on human rights issues and questions about the Scottish Parliament’s competence on the extraterritorial issues. In the QC’s words,

“The procedural failures in the introduction of—and the substantive defects on the face of—the Bill are so”

conspicuously bad

“that it is unclear why the Bill is being taken forward in its current form, which leave it open to successful legal challenge before the courts by any interested member of the public.”

In its financial memorandum, the Government says that the legislation is a minimal change and that it does not seek to prosecute new offences or increase the number of prosecutions significantly. Some people propose that that approach suggests that the bill is window dressing or a public relations statement to Scotland’s people about what direction the Government is insisting on. Members might agree that that is, of itself, sufficiently important, but there is a real danger of creating unrealistic expectations.

I am in no doubt that the destination that the Government wants to get to is absolutely right, but its road map is absolutely wrong. There are many questions for it to answer. For example, is it acting illegally? Aidan O’Neill QC of Edinburgh states in his opinion of 21 June, which was prepared for the Christian Institute and CARE, that it is doing so on a range of issues. I read much of that detailed opinion yesterday evening.

In an oral presentation on the bill’s provisions at the stakeholder meeting on 17 June, the civil servant tasked with advising on the policy of the bill stated that civil servants had been instructed only some three weeks ago to produce a bill on the issue, whereas they would normally expect the production of a bill to be the outcome of a process of research and consultation extending over 18 months.

Are the various commentators correct who have said that it is rather unclear whether section 1 introduces new substantive criminal offences or is about clearly restating the law? It is valuable to be clear about the law, but the bill is not introducing new crimes and the sort of behaviours that we are talking about are already offences.

In the committee, Tim Hopkins said:

“The inclusion of the offence of stirring up religious hatred, in particular, was not trailed at all—we had certainly heard nothing about it. The offence is actually quite substantive and, indeed, created a huge amount of debate down south when it was proposed. That is where we think the biggest problem lies.”

He continued:

“The offence is similar to breach of the peace, so arguably it does not extend the law very much. Homophobic and sectarian behaviour at football matches can already be prosecuted as a breach of the peace aggravated by one of the statutory hate crime aggravations. It has been said that breach of the peace is too broad and the boundaries of the law are not clear.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 June 2011; c 88.]

We already know that there are many people in Scotland who, like the Government, have a huge reservoir of good will and the ability to contribute to this key work. We need to accept their offers of assistance and engage with them meaningfully.

However, I remind members that, when the United Kingdom Government attempted to legislate for Scotland, as well as for England and Wales, on inciting religious hatred, the Scottish National Party MPs opposed the measure in the Westminster Parliament on the basis that they considered existing Scots law to be sufficient to deal with the issue. I leave members to ponder that point.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I welcome the bill. Many critics question whether it is necessary. Many commentators have commented that, in the common-law offence of breach of the peace and in section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 in particular, we have sufficient laws, which could be enforced in relation to behaviour such as that under discussion if they were used fully, and that sentencing could also be addressed under current legislation. “So why do we need the bill?” they ask.

Let us be clear that existing legislation could be used on many occasions, but it is in the nature of law that offences can be prosecuted in many different ways, and it is for the police and the Crown to consider how best to proceed when alternatives are available. In addition, the same argument—that the same ends could be achieved under existing law—was made during the passage of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 and rejected then.

There is no doubt that the bill fulfils a need. It represents an opportunity to send a clear message to Scotland that behaviour of the sort that it covers is not acceptable in modern-day Scotland. It makes that abundantly clear to all who attend football matches and I believe that it will encourage enforcement.

However, it is not an all-encompassing bill and nor should it seek to be one. I am heartened by the support of the police representatives in that respect, by the comments of the SFA chief executive, Stewart Regan, and by the willingness of the football clubs’ representatives to embrace the measure in an undoubtedly short timescale. However, that means, of course, that there is a responsibility on the Parliament to ensure that the bill is well crafted.

In that respect, I welcome the Law Society of Scotland’s comments on the definition of regulated football matches. I also welcome the Equality Network’s thoughtful contribution to the debate and its support for the section 1 offence. I also share its concerns on the narrow remit of section 5(5) which, in contrast to section 1, is restricted to religious hatred only. However, the clear intention of the bill is not to impact on proselytising or anything of an artistic nature. Therefore, on the defences that would be available under section 5(6), it is arguable that less is better. I am not currently persuaded that the adoption of an English-style freedom of expression defence would improve matters.

We have heard a little about deficiencies in the existing law on breach of the peace. It is clear that paragraph 21 of the policy memorandum does not adequately state the common-law position. However, it is equally clear from the decision in HMA v Harris that the absence of a public element would be fatal to a prosecution for breach of the peace. Addressing that is at least part of the intention of section 1(5)(b).

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

On the deficiencies in the current law on breach of the peace in relation to domestic premises, does Roderick Campbell accept that there is a shortfall in the bill in that the offences in it do not cover such premises?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

No, I do not agree with that point.

Critics of the bill have also made a great deal of play about what they say is a lack of clarity in a bill that may outlaw the singing of the national anthem. I fully support the minister and the Lord Advocate when they draw attention to the fact that, in considering whether there is any offensive act, account must be taken of the facts, character and context. No legislation can be looked at in a vacuum.

I also fully support the fact that measures on offensive legislation will cover not only fans’ behaviour but that of players and officials. That is an important aspect that needs to be emphasised.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Would that offensive behaviour extend to the chant that one occasionally hears on Easter Road: “If you hate the”—expletive removed—“Jambos, clap your hands”?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The minister might care to deal with that matter in her closing speech.

We should also accept that the bill is no silver bullet. We cannot change a culture overnight.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

No.

Additional measures—such as stricter policing of licensed premises on the day of matches, tougher policing, prosecution of e-hate crime and tackling sectarianism among offenders—are important. I also hope that the joint action group can build on its work and its six-point joint action plan, which was announced in May.

Perhaps inevitably, much of the comment on the bill has focused on the speed of its progress, but we have a problem that needs to be sorted and we should not shy away from dealing with it. Sunset clauses may have attractions, but in my view it will be necessary to keep the legislation under review for longer than it would be prudent to use a sunset clause.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

We have work to do on the bill, but let us support it and get to work on helping to build a better society.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate, as I welcomed the opportunity to participate in the members’ debate on sectarianism and anti-Irish racism last week. I left that debate knowing that many members in the chamber want to tackle the issue. While today’s debate might ebb and flow, I know that every single one of us here wants a solution, and wants to improve the circumstances that people are facing outwith the Parliament.

There are legitimate concerns about the speed of the bill process, but I recognise that the Government is trying to improve things. I will highlight my main concern about the pace at which we are going. One issue that has been raised is how we as a Parliament engage with civic Scotland. There are people who have legitimate concerns on this matter inside and outside the Parliament, but if we try to introduce laws on sectarianism too quickly it allows those who have illegitimate concerns to raise them, too. That is one of the main issues that we need to deal with today and in the next week or so as we scrutinise the legislation.

The changes that we are seeking to introduce are a laudable attempt to move things in the right direction. However, in order to make a real difference we must educate people over a longer period of time. That is why I stressed in last week’s members’ debate that I felt—perhaps with the benefit of hindsight—that it was a little disappointing that the First Minister and the Scottish National Party Government moved away in the previous session of Parliament from that educational approach and from the focus on sectarianism.

If we are going to introduce legislation now, we need to ensure that we promote education alongside it. I see that Stewart Maxwell is shaking his head, but, for the new members here, that is what happened: the focus was taken away.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I am sorry to correct Mr Park, but that is not what happened. We moved to a situation in which we dealt directly with the issue and with organisations outside the Parliament. We moved away from public relations stunts and publicity events that were purely for the Evening News and did not actually tackle the issue.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Stewart Maxwell for giving me the opportunity to respond to that. To declare an interest, I was actively involved in sectarianism work before I entered the Parliament in 2007. Although the summits might have had a PR or a media focus, I know about the level of work that was going on in the Scottish Government at that time, and I know that it stopped taking place after 2007. I am speaking from experience.

There are a number of organisations such as Nil by Mouth, sense over sectarianism and show bigotry the red card—which I became aware of last week and is part of Show Racism the Red Card—that do some fantastic work. As parliamentarians, we need to support them as much as we can, but we need to find out how we can lever in significant support.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Does Mr Park accept that those organisations have received significant sums of money from this Government throughout the period and are continuing to receive that money against the backdrop of the cuts from Westminster that we are having to deal with?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the Government took a different approach, and that there has been a lack of focus. I am trying to explain that we need to move forward. It is not just about legislation; it is about education and putting extra resource into it over a longer period of time.

I will say a bit about threatening communication and how we challenge some of the language and behaviour around that. We have a real issue that has developed over a period of time with regard to self-regulation and the internet. I commend the Government for trying to do something about that, as the issue is difficult to deal with.

The registration, operation and moderation of websites must be examined more specifically. Certain organisations have encouraged people to hide behind nicknames to criticise people in the public eye and make arrangements around football matches. We as a Parliament must tackle that, and so must the Scottish Government.

I am happy that we are moving forward on the issue today. There has been debate about the pace of the process, but we need to send a clear message that we are united in wanting to tackle sectarianism and make a difference. I know that members in the chamber believe that, but the Government must listen to the points that we make so that we can all make a difference and get legislation that we can work on.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

For Margo MacDonald’s benefit, as a pretty well-known Jambo around the place who has done missionary work in Easter Road on numerous occasions I do not take offence at many of the things that she mentions.

I welcome the fact that members on all sides of the chamber recognise the need to clamp down on sectarian crime, and hate crime in general. Such crimes shame this country. We undoubtedly have one of the most awkward sectarian problems in Europe, which damages this country and its international reputation as a multicultural, friendly and tolerant society.

My colleagues and the minister have outlined the bill’s aims and the importance of ensuring that it comes into force before the start of the football season. Earlier this week, the Justice Committee took evidence from a number of people representing different stakeholder groups with an interest in the proposed legislation. Like members in the chamber today, everyone wants an end to this cancer, and we should not allow it to take any more of a grip than it already has.

The bill is generally supported by the police. Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan and Les Gray of the Scottish Police Federation both view the bill as a useful tool for enforcement, mainly because the Scottish courts are now defining breach of the peace in a more restrictive way, which makes convictions more difficult to obtain. The minister gave a good example of that in her opening statement.

We have heard from the SPL, the SFA, Celtic and Rangers, all of which desire to see the end of sectarianism because it does their clubs no good nationally or in the international arena. I grant that they did, like many people, have concerns about the speed of the bill’s progress.

It was interesting to hear the Lord Advocate’s views. He was quite clear that the sensationalist headlines in many of yesterday morning’s newspapers were not accurate. Humza Yousaf pointed out earlier that the guidance will make clear that, as with breach of the peace, everything is determined on fact, circumstances and, most important, context.

As the Lord Advocate stated, the guidance makes clear that the bill

“is not intended to criminalise the singing of national anthems in the absence of any other aggravating behaviour. It is not intended to criminalise the making of religious gestures while national anthems are being sung in the absence of any aggravating behaviour”.

It is

“not intended to cover peaceful preaching or to restrict freedom of speech, including the right to criticise or comment on religious or non-religious beliefs, even in harsh or derogatory terms. It is not intended to criminalise jokes or satire about religious or non-religious beliefs.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 June 2011; c 101.]

Those concerns have been addressed, which deals with some of the issues that objectors have raised.

I will move my focus to the wider aspects surrounding sectarianism, such as education, although I will not necessarily make the same point that John Lamont made earlier. It would be short-sighted to suggest that sectarianism flares up only during football matches or sport in general. Although it is often manifested during certain football games, we must acknowledge that we need to look beyond enforcement to tackle the root of the problem, as Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan mentioned in his evidence.

The Labour Party has on several occasions suggested that the SNP did little to fight sectarianism during its first term in government, but that is misleading. Over the past three years, the SNP has developed an online educational resource that has delivered workshops in schools to nearly 3,000 pupils, who have now gone on to deliver a wide range of anti-sectarian work.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Can Colin Keir tell us what happened to the anti-sectarianism strategy that the then Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, promised in November 2009?

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

It might be a better idea if the member asked the minister that question.

We took advantage of the role-model status of footballers to educate young people about the wrongs and dangers of Islamophobia, which should have no place in multicultural Scotland. In 2009-10, the Scottish Government provided £415,000 to projects aimed at tackling sectarianism, including in schools, and additional resources were made available to Learning and Teaching Scotland.

I see that I am running out of time. I know that there are concerns about the speed with which the legislation is going through the Parliament. One bill on its own will not change our society; it takes every citizen to acknowledge that there is a problem and to show willingness to solve it. As I have said, there are concerns about the speed with which the legislation is being passed, but the problem is not of our making—it goes back many years and it needs to be looked at now. I would like our generation to be the one that relegates sectarianism and hate crime in Scotland to the history books. That might not be possible in the short term, but I believe that the bill could be a good starting point for on-going work.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the Government’s willingness to address this hugely important area of our national life, which is complex and evokes a multitude of reactions, loyalties, grievances and emotions in all of us, across parties, across religions and across this country.

Questions have been raised about why tackling sectarianism was not a priority for the SNP Government during the four years of the previous session, and about why First Minister Jack McConnell’s initiative on sectarianism was never taken up but was pushed to the side and forgotten. Perhaps Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill will ask themselves those questions in a quiet moment during the recess.

Where do we draw the line between cultural patriotism and sectarian behaviour? It is a precariously thin line. No one really knows where to draw it—indeed, no one really wants to draw it. One risk of the bill—which the Justice Committee clearly identified over the past couple of days—is that the definitions of the new crimes and of sectarian behaviour are not sufficiently clear. The bill fails to draw the line.

That failure throws up two issues. The first is that by failing to define those crimes properly, the Parliament is handing the power to define sectarian crime to the courts. Nobody would really envy the procurator fiscal who is charged with marking the first of these cases in late July or August, nor the procurator fiscal who prosecutes the case and the sheriff who hears it come September. There is wide scope for judicial interpretation. That is the courts’ job, but by leaving the lawyers such latitude for interpretation Parliament has surrendered a lot of its democratically elected mandate to pass good, clear, thorough and workable legislation and handed it over to the courts and the Crown.

The second issue is that the law will not be clearly understood by the public. One of the founding principles of jurisprudence in this country is that the law must be clear and understandable, so that people know what they can and cannot do before they are hauled in by the police and the courts.

Over the past few days, the Justice Committee has heard about the confusion about what will fall within the ambit of the bill and what will not. Certain songs, words and phrases will be covered, but it will depend on how they are delivered and the intonation and level of aggression used.

I am not saying that this is easy law to make—it is highly complex, highly charged and highly emotive—but that makes it all the more clear that Parliament should have taken the time to consult properly, pore over the detail and start to foresee the consequences of the bill.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

The bill could throw up all sorts of human rights issues: challenges relating to freedom of speech, to freedom of expression and to the European convention on human rights might all come down the line. That is why the Government must commit not just to passing the bill then sitting back and letting the football season commence but to writing a sunset clause or review period into it. Whatever mechanism is used, the Government must commit to making monitoring, enforcement and paying proper attention to the legislation a priority over the whole five years of this session, not just these opening few weeks.

We owe it to Scotland and to the next generation—to the children who are sitting behind me today—to legislate well on this issue and commit to seeing it through.

As part of a longer-term commitment on tackling sectarianism, I ask the Government to work with other parties on a major review that probes the causes of our problem. We all know that prejudice is not confined to the football terraces. The bill tries to tackle the most obvious and public manifestation of sectarianism, but it does not tackle religious bigotry in the play parks of our communities, in the pubs and in the streets. The root causes of our problem must be addressed, and I do not think for a minute that that will be easy.

I look forward to the Government’s proposals for tackling the root causes of bigotry; an investigation into the poverty that blights areas where bigotry and prejudice can too easily take hold; and careful and considered proposals on how we can bring about a cultural change and move to a better Scotland that is tolerant and accepting of different religious and cultural identities.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the debate. A number of members have asked whether the bill is too rushed. As a person, I tend to be on the cautious side of things—I want to consult, hear people’s views and sleep on a decision before I make it, which sometimes might upset my staff. However, there are times in life when we have to make a point, take action and show that something is really important. I believe that we are in that position now.

The opposite danger of going too fast is going too slowly, so that five years from now we are still sitting here talking about these things, with people still having similar concerns.

The bill is not the final answer on sectarianism, but it is an attempt to deal with one part of it. It is important that this Parliament states that we are serious about it.

Paul Martin said that this is a people’s Parliament. He is correct, but the danger for him is that he is getting out of touch with the people. Even since the election, a number of people in my constituency, which is adjacent to his, have suggested to me that all marches be banned. I do not agree with that, but there is considerable public feeling that we have to do something, not just in the bill but beyond it.

Patrick Harvie said that if we get it wrong, we might do more harm than good. He is mistaken on that point. Sometimes we have to try things. They will not always be perfect, but we have to give them a go and we have to be seen to be doing something.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Does the member believe that we have to do something for the sake of doing it? In the park today, I passed a car on which was an Irish flag flying gaily in the breeze. It was there really to tell us to get our act together and not be so silly with this legislation.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I disagree that we are acting for the sake of acting. We are acting because there is a real problem here and we all believe that we have to deal with it.

A number of speakers have raised the issue of who has been fighting hard against sectarianism and who has not. We all have to share some of the blame for not always confronting it at different times. I think I am correct in saying that Donald Gorrie of the Liberal Democrats was the first MSP who really ran with it in the Parliament. I am happy to accept that Jack McConnell did, too. When I was elected to Glasgow City Council, which clearly was not run by my party, sectarianism was not on the agenda—the council was not talking about sectarianism, but we raised the issue at that stage.

I want to raise a couple of issues on which I hope that the minister can provide some reassurance—some members have raised them already. The first is resources. Some legislation, such as the smoking ban, has been largely self-policing. However, other legislation, such as that prohibiting the use of mobile phones while driving, has become a joke, because one cannot walk down the street or drive a car without seeing people using a mobile phone while driving. That is a danger with any legislation. I suspect that it would take more resources than we have at our disposal to clamp down on the use of mobile phones. I seek a reassurance from the minister that she is happy that the British Transport Police, for example, have enough resources. When I am on trains in my constituency that pass near Celtic Park—

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I know that John Mason is aware of my motion on the fact that Partick Thistle’s ground is to become a police-free ground. How does he envisage the bill being enforced at such a ground?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

As the member probably knows, I am not a Partick Thistle fan but a Clyde fan, so I would not want to go anywhere near Partick Thistle. The member is asking the same question that I am asking. I seek from the minister some reassurance about resources.

The second point, which is raised in legal advice from the Christian Institute and elsewhere, relates to freedom of expression. Can the minister give us some reassurance that the bill does not need to include a section that guarantees freedom of speech, especially with regard to religious evangelism or proselytising?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I say to John Mason that the disagreement that we have is not about the nature of the problem but about whether the detail of the bill—not the signal that it sends—is part of the solution.

For the benefit of new members, for whom this is the first taste of legislative scrutiny in the Parliament, I point out that this is not how it is supposed to be—it is not the way in which scrutiny normally happens. Most stage 1 speeches begin with a fairly obvious and slightly boring comment in which the member thanks the relevant committee for producing its detailed stage 1 report and taking all the evidence on the bill. We make that comment time after time—and we mean it. Today, we do not have before us a stage 1 report that would give us the opportunity to reflect on how members have received evidence, reflected on it and changed their view. Often, members do not change their view on the principle of legislation, but they do change their view on the detail. That detailed scrutiny has not happened in this case. We do not have the capacity or time to do our job on the bill in a week.

There are really serious issues relating to the detail of the bill’s content. I raised one such issue during the minister’s opening remarks: it concerned the difference between “hatred” and the term “malice and ill-will”, which has been used in previous hate crime legislation. The minister was not able to say whether those terms mean the same thing or why there has been a change. If we do not know what the terms mean, why have we changed from one to the other?

The wide nature of this hate crime legislation is welcome in principle. This is not a sectarianism bill—it covers a wide range of forms of hate crime. That is good in principle, for example because of the high level of homophobia that exists both in football and elsewhere in society. However, it clearly implies a far wider range of situations in which offences could be committed under the bill. Previously, time has been taken to consider the options—to recognise that not every form of hate crime requires exactly the same legislative response, because the details differ. The working group on hate crime that was set up back in the first session produced recommendations that were not enacted until my member’s bill—the Offences (Aggravation By Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill—did so last session. There were years of consultation and scrutiny to get the detail right before the proposals reached the statute book or even came before Parliament for a vote.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Patrick Harvie spoke about his concerns about time. Does he agree with the SFA head, Stewart Regan, who says that it would be “challenging” and unnatural to introduce legislation midway through a season? Is he content to wait for another football season to go by without doing anything?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Parliament does not operate by football season—it operates by taking the time to get the legislation right. Passing bad legislation now would be worse than doing nothing.

I want to talk about section 5 of the bill, on threatening communications, because that is where I see the most serious problems arising. The section ignores and cuts through fundamental debates about what freedom and liberty mean in the online sphere that are on-going in our society and throughout the world. It bears no relationship to regulated football matches, so there is no justification for the argument that the threatening communications section must be in place for the new football season. It has nothing to do with what happens at football games or where games are broadcast. It does not cover live speech, but it covers recorded speech. A person could say something live that is perfectly legal and legitimate, but as soon as someone takes a clip of it on their mobile phone and puts it up on YouTube, an offence will have been committed. There are really serious problems.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am afraid that I do not have time to take another intervention. I wish that we had more time.

Section 5 covers religious grounds only. Why does it not cover hate crime in general, as other provisions of the bill do? Will it cover trivial issues such as those involved in the Twitter joke trial down south, of which members will be aware? Paul Chambers was convicted of menacing electronic communication for a really trivial joke. There is also no commitment to a freedom-of-speech defence. The minister says that the issue has not even been considered.

In concluding, let me say something that the fictional Sir Humphrey once said to his Prime Minister and that I hope someone has said to this minister: “If you must do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.”

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hoped that I would never see the day in this chamber when Labour, in the form of Mr Kelly, would use our sectarian problems for party-political point scoring. In his speech, Mr Kelly suggested that the SNP had come on board late to tackle the scourge of sectarianism. His comment was unworthy of our debate and I thought that we would struggle to exceed it, until I heard Mr Lamont’s speech. Denominational schooling does not foster sectarianism, but intolerance of denominational schooling can do so. We witnessed a little of that intolerance in Mr Lamont’s speech this morning.

I stress two other points in relation to tackling sectarianism. First, despite some of the comments that we have heard in the chamber today, sectarianism is not specifically a west-of-Scotland problem—that is just wrong. Secondly, sectarianism at football grounds does not occur only with some Celtic or Rangers supporters—it happens to varying degrees with different football supporters at different clubs across Scotland. Margo MacDonald got that wrong.

Margo MacDonald rose—

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. I do not have time to take an intervention.

The speed of the bill process and the degree of scrutiny to which the bill is subject have been hot topics, to say the least. There is a balancing act to be performed. Do we have the bill on the statute book before the start of the new football season, or do we afford greater time for consultation and scrutiny? There is a reasonable debate to be had about that, but there is no black and white here—it is a judgment call. On balance, I agree that we should be fleet of foot and act quickly to get the bill on the statute book before the start of the football season. On balance, that judgment is correct. We need to focus on the start of the new season. That is why the bill has been introduced now.

I turn to how the police and the courts will use the bill—specifically, its interpretation. I strongly believe that having a list of approved or proscribed songs or actions would be unworkable and unhelpful, no matter how long we take to scrutinise the bill. That is why there are no specific lists for breach of the peace. Under common law, breach of the peace is

“conduct which presents as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person.”

There are no specific lists of conduct that falls into that category. We must proceed likewise in the bill. However, as we have heard, there will be guidance.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have only four minutes. I ask Margo MacDonald to sit down.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

The member is lucky to have four minutes.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The specifics of the bill relate to how some people in our society use football as a vehicle to peddle sectarianism and hatred. Although there is other relevant legislation, there is clearly a legislative gap on the specifics of football. This emergency bill seeks to fill that gap and I support it for the reasons that I have given. I ask for reassurance that there is robust post-legislative scrutiny and follow-up legislation if need be.

I name-checked Mr Kelly at the start of my speech. Mr Kelly suggested other ideas for future legislation, which we should not rule out. I listened carefully to what he had to say.

I apologise to Margo MacDonald and other members for not being able to take their interventions, but time has been rather short.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

A great many fine words have been spoken this morning, none better than those of the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs in her opening speech, which reflected our collective sense of outrage and shame at the behaviour of some of our fellow Scots at football matches, not only during the season just gone, which was truly an annus horribilis, as someone might have said, but in seasons past.

Those of us who love the game of football and who frequently attend matches to support our team, as I have been doing for nearly 50 years, have become so used to the vile and crude songs, abuse and chants that we have almost tended to regard it as an ingrained part of the game—an unpleasant part of the football experience that has to be suffered and that nothing will change.

The events of the season past have brought into focus the need to do more to tackle the problem, not just for the sake of the game but for the reputation of our country. To that extent, the resolve and determination of the Government should be welcomed. However, we sit in this Parliament not just to voice fine sentiments and noble aspirations and goals; we are here also to construct the laws that govern our citizens and it is in relation to a proposed law—not a tokenistic or symbolic offering, or a piece of political grandstanding—that we must examine and decide upon the bill that the Government has brought to the Parliament.

The “something must be done” syndrome is one of the weaknesses of the Parliament. A new, bad, ineffectual law can make a situation worse, not better. Patrick Harvie made a spirited and informed contribution on that point.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Can the member state why his party did not support the Scottish Labour Party’s view that members should sit during the summer recess, just as has been done in other Parliaments in Europe when there is something fundamentally important to consider?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

I did not think that that was an appropriate timetable. I thought that I explained that in the debate that we had this morning as a preliminary to this one.

We must not only consider the specifics of the bill and ask whether it will help in the eradication of such appalling behaviour from our society; we must also ask whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to pass such a law in this accelerated fashion. Our party has considerable reservations. Although Christine Grahame’s proposal to include a sunset clause to review the operation of the legislation after two years is welcome, that is not a substitute for getting it right first time.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

I am sorry—I want to make a little more progress.

Our reservations stem not just from the prospect that the singing of our national anthem could in certain circumstances and contexts be characterised as a criminal offence, although that has attracted a great deal of publicity over the past couple of days. It is a far wider issue.

The bill does not attempt to define what is sectarian. There are those who argue that sectarian behaviour should be viewed in the context of prejudice towards members of a religious group, or a group with a perceived religious affiliation. I argue that that is far too narrow a focus. Sectarianism in Scotland, in the wider sense, embraces attitudes and positions that are born out of the history of Ireland, most recently Northern Ireland—of which we have had a timely and unwelcome reminder in recent days. The migration of people in both directions means that in certain parts of Scotland social divisions reflect those to be found in Ireland, of which religious persuasion is only one aspect. That is an inescapable fact. For that reason, sectarian behaviour in Scotland embraces not just religious prejudice and bigotry, but the expression of support for terrorist and republican nationalist organisations.

I am afraid that the bill repeats exactly the same error that was found in the 2003 legislation, which created the concept of an aggravated offence that was meant to tackle sectarianism. The error is that the provision was one-sided. It explicitly tackled only one aspect of sectarian behaviour. Some of us knew it all along, and said so. It was highlighted at a recent court case in evidence from one of our eminent historians, Professor Tom Devine. As a result of his erudite explanation of the history of our country and of Ireland, the court concluded that evincing vocal support for the Irish Republican Army in a public place could well be a breach of the peace, but it could not be an offence aggravated by religious prejudice under the terms of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.

The bill before us makes exactly the same error. It is heavy on explicit references to membership of

“a religious group”

or

“a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation”,

but it says nothing explicitly about behaviour that expresses support for terrorist organisations, be they republican or loyalist, which have been responsible in recent years for the murders of thousands of our fellow citizens. There will be no public confidence in the proposed measures unless that sort of behaviour is specified in the bill. I am afraid that the ministers’ answer that such conduct can fall into some other generalised sub-category will not wash. We will, therefore, lodge an amendment at stage 2 to repair that omission, and I urge the Government to consider it seriously.

The Scottish Conservatives will abstain in the stage 1 vote, in order to give the Government an opportunity to address our concerns on that and other issues, and we will make our final judgment at stage 3.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We all acknowledge the significance of the debate and the importance of the issue.

I will speak first about the timing and why that matters. The Lord Advocate said that we had a choice: we could talk to ourselves for a while, or we could just get on with it. Even with the very limited scrutiny that the Justice Committee could give to the bill, it was able to raise important questions—not in a hostile way, and not in a way that would be difficult for the Government—that I, for one, had not thought of before. Our process strengthens any legislation, even when we start from the point of view of supporting a bill. I hope that, in her summing up, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs will make it clear that she disagrees fundamentally with the approach that the Lord Advocate took when he made his comments.

After the election, the Scottish Labour Party in particular wished to acknowledge what the SNP had done in winning the election. We said that we wanted to co-operate with the Scottish Government wherever we could, but that we reserved the right not to do so where we disagreed. When I said that—I have said it publicly—I did not imagine that the argument that I would get into would be on sectarianism, an issue that all members of the Parliament—particularly Jack McConnell during his time as First Minister—have highlighted and on which they have demanded that action be taken.

It is a matter of huge frustration that, instead of taking the current approach, we could have built unity by working through the parliamentary process on good proposed legislation, and thereby sent out a very strong message. The Government has made it difficult for people to build that unity. I object in the strongest of terms to any implication that says that we do not care about sectarianism if we oppose the bill. That is fundamentally unfair and unjust. We want to ensure that, if the bill is enacted, the voice coming from the Parliament says that we are united in opposing the behaviour that has promoted it and that we take the matter seriously. We do not want the law to be implemented in such a way that people can deride and disregard it.

We have lost an opportunity, at this early stage, to build such unity. We were explicitly told by ministers, by means of an argument that I found I could accept, that the clubs wanted the legislation to be in place before the new season started. That was a powerful argument for supporting the passage of the bill, but the clubs have in fact told us that that is simply not the case. We must ask what the truth of the matter is. Sadly, I am left with the feeling that the First Minister thought that it was a good idea to get the legislation in before the next season, and his ministers have been left to develop a post hoc rationalisation for doing that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

If the First Minister and the Government were, at this late stage, to be persuaded by the arguments that the bill must be given greater scrutiny, would the Opposition find it in their hearts to applaud that step back rather than condemn it?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Absolutely. I am happy to condemn the SNP on a range of things, including its objections to the constitutional settlement but, on this issue, we can be united on getting the right legislation through. During stages 2 and 3 we want to do what we can to make the bill as strong as possible and we will reserve our judgment on the bill until the end of that period.

John Lamont talked about Catholic schools. In my constituency, I have Catholic and non-denominational schools of which I am immensely proud. It is inconsistent for people to argue that children going to separate schools causes discrimination, when we know that, historically, that is not the case. Further, it certainly does not make sense for someone who advocates private education to say that those difficulties are the consequence of separating children.

Alison McInnes asked a number of questions and I would welcome the minister making a commitment to answer them in writing, because that would help us in our further consideration of the bill.

There is a place for legislation that sends signals, clarifies issues and ensures that people understand that the subject with which it deals is a problem, so we do not simply say that there is no place for this kind of legislation. We will make a judgment on the bill after interrogating it further at stages 2 and 3.

I will ask the minister a number of questions. We accept that there are issues around breach of the peace legislation that can weaken the possibility of securing a conviction. I accept the role of legislation in naming the crime, which is why I support legislation on stalking and legislation that identifies trafficking and domestic abuse. I understand why that is being done and I do not think that that, in itself, should be an objection.

We have significant concerns, however, about how the legislation will be policed in public houses. I am not talking about a ridiculous scenario. I am concerned about the possibility that someone who is abusive and offends people in a pub in which the television is not on will not commit a crime, while someone who does so when the television is on will commit a crime. How will that be policed? Who should someone complain to? How will we train people who work in pubs to deal with that situation? That is not a trivial point; it is important. Related to that is the question whether someone who commits an offence was or was not going to the football, or had been going to go the football but changed their mind.

Those who do not wish this legislation to work will make hay in those areas and we must acknowledge that there are those who do not want it to work. I am not being mischievous, but there are people who, by the very nature of their bigoted behaviour, will want to find ways of undermining people’s confidence in the legislation.

Equally, we need to know what advice the police are getting. We are asking the police to implement legislation as it is getting royal assent. How do we imagine that they are being trained? What are they to be told that they have to do? I would like reassurance on that matter.

Another area that we would like the minister to consider further concerns the question of domestic premises. Bob Doris made the point that sectarianism does not happen only at Celtic and Rangers games, but it is also true that it does not happen only at football games. Do we imaging that the bigot leaves his bigotry at the turnstile as he heads home? I know that, in our communities, sectarianism is the abuse of choice and that, when a football match is on, someone who has hostility to his neighbour will use their faith against them as a means of abusing them. We would like to know whether it is possible for the bill to encompass those situations. It is important that we do not allow the bill to be about just football. If we had had longer to think about the matter, we might have wanted to amend the hate crime legislation in a different way in order to identify specific behaviours in our community and in the football ground. In saying all that, I do not want to gainsay the important response to the events of last year.

I want the minister to respond in particular to the points from Tim Hopkins about why condition B in section 5(5) identifies only religious hatred and to say whether she would consider expanding that condition. I also ask the minister to respond to the critical issue of the sunset clause. For us, it is not a get-out clause. We must identify now how the review would take place and who would be involved in it. I would like the monitoring of the bill to be reported to the Parliament within six months and at regular intervals thereafter. If we get confidence on those matters, it might be that that would give us confidence in supporting legislation that we know must be seen as a response to unacceptable behaviour that has shamed us and shamed Scotland in the way that the minister identified.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

A great many points have been raised today. I will deal with as many as I can in this speech and will follow up others as quickly as possible.

There is support across the chamber for the aims of the bill. I welcome that, because it is helpful for us all to remember where we are trying to get to, even if we have the occasional disagreement on how we get there. A modern Scotland cannot continue to tolerate behaviour at football matches that stirs up any kind of hatred, or threats that are intended to cause others fear and alarm, on the internet or elsewhere. I believe that support for that aim is echoed across Scotland. People saw the scenes that we all saw and have had enough. Rightly, they expect this Government and this Parliament to do something about the situation.

We have taken decisive action from the start because it is our view that we should move quickly on the matter. We simply cannot run the risk of allowing the next football season to kick off in the same way in which the last one finished. That is the fundamental point that has driven us and is the reason why we did not try to extend the legislation much beyond its present scope. I will return to that point.

There has been support for taking action before the start of the new season. Support has come not only from the SFA, for the good and practical reasons that Stewart Regan outlined over the past day or two, but from Paul McBride, one of the people who was a victim of what happened at the end of last season. His view is that we are absolutely correct to bring in the legislation as quickly as possible and that there is no reason for delay.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Would the minister care to correct the impression that has been given that the football clubs asked for the legislation to be introduced by the start of the new season? Clearly, as was shown at yesterday’s Justice Committee meeting, that is not the case.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am not conscious that I ever indicated to anyone that the football clubs had asked us to do that. They certainly support the principle of the legislation, and are on record as saying so, and the SFA is definitely of the view that it needs to be in force before the start of the football season and should not be introduced in the middle of a football season.

A number of members have called for us to consider having a sunset clause, which would provide that the legislation would expire after a fixed period unless the Parliament agreed to keep it in force beyond the end of that period. There are significant concerns around attaching a sunset clause to legislation that involves the creation of criminal offences, not least of which is the risk that the sun might set in the period between someone having been convicted and having been sentenced. There are good reasons why, in the main, those clauses do not tend to attach to legislation that deals with criminal offences. However, I understand the concerns that lie behind the request and the Government is actively examining options for reviewing the operation of the legislation over time. We will take into account the concerns that have been expressed and we hope to bring a proposal back to the Parliament before the end of next week. I hope that members will accept that in the spirit in which it is offered.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

I remind the minister that the Terrorism Act 2006 requires to be renewed every year. Perhaps we could consider that device?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

It will not surprise Margo MacDonald to know that we took that into account in relation to the requests that have been made. There are reasons why the provisions in the 2006 act would not apply in the same way in relation to the issue that we are discussing. I am happy to discuss the issue further with Margo MacDonald if she wishes.

There has been a lot of discussion and debate about whether the bill is needed, given the existence of other laws that could be used to prosecute individuals. In committee, the Lord Advocate and I used examples to make the point that there have been real concerns in recent years about the uses of breach of the peace and how they have been narrowed over time. We want the bill to provide further clarity for police and prosecutors by focusing on the core problem of behaviour that incites public disorder.

Alison McInnes asked a series of questions, some of which relate to specific figures, and I will make sure that she gets specific answers to those. I say this in the kindest way, but some of her questions suggest that she probably does not know a great deal about current Scots law. She asked what the definition of a reasonable person is in Scots law; everyone who is involved in Scots law has used that terminology endlessly in legislation and it is often integral to the working of the law. It is not defined, precisely because a reasonable person can change in all sorts of circumstances and over time. I undertake to get back to Alison McInnes on the specific issues to which we can easily provide an answer, but some of her questions go way wider than required for discussion of the bill.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I really must get on if I am to deal with points from other members.

The second offence addresses threatening communications, including those that incite religious hatred. I believe that it will address a gap in the current law in Scotland when it is compared with legislation elsewhere.

A lot of points have been raised. One or two members mentioned freedom of speech. Of course, it was always possible to extend the second offence to include actual speech but, precisely because of the concerns that have been expressed here today—concerns that we share—we did not do so. I hope that members will accept that.

John Park made some rather more measured comments about changes in the way in which sectarianism might or might not have been tackled over the years. He must accept that, under the previous Administration, entirely new projects were started. Specific examples are the Iona Community, which worked with prisoners, and the sectarianism in the workplace project, which was funded through Nil by Mouth. For all the anti-sectarianism groups, this year’s financial contribution is more than £0.5 million, and that is working extremely well.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I acknowledge those projects, some of which have had lifespans over successive Governments. My point was that there was political leadership before 2007, but that shifted and the First Minister did not have the same focus. With hindsight, we all agree that that leadership should have stayed.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

In the two and a half minutes that I have left, I need to deal with what we are talking about today.

James Kelly raised a point about the definition of regulated football matches, which is exactly the same as it is in football banning orders. We are deliberately not changing it.

After John Lamont’s astonishing diversion into a diatribe against Scottish education, perhaps the Conservatives need to reconsider how they approach sectarianism in Scotland. What he said suggests that they are reckless about whether sectarianism gets stirred up even further. It was a quite astonishing intervention.

I hope that I have dealt with John Mason’s freedom-of-speech point.

Other members raised the issue of resources. We are in constant discussion with the police about the resources that will be required. Part of that discussion is taking place in the joint action group and announcements will be made on 11 July as a result of that work. I hope that members accept that.

I come to Johann Lamont’s perfectly fair point about the extent to which the fallout from such behaviour can extend far beyond football. She is absolutely right and I agree with her. I have not ruled out coming back with further legislation in future if we can identify how best to do that. However, we are using an accelerated timetable to pass the bill and we are trying to keep it as confined and defined as possible. I will have a discussion with Johann Lamont about the future.

I must conclude because time is short—I have 20 seconds. I underline the importance of the bill and remind members about the clear and unequivocal support given by Assistant Chief Constable Campbell Corrigan and the on-the-record support for the introduction of the legislation by Celtic Football Club and Rangers Football Club. Members are welcome to look at the record if they want to see the quotes.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

That concludes the stage 1 debate on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. The question on the motion will be put after First Minister’s question time.

Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S4M-00383, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in paragraph 3(b)(iii) of Rule 9.12 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the act.—[Roseanna Cunningham.]

General Questions

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Questions 1 and 2 were not lodged. We move to question 3. I remind members that supplementary questions are just that. I do not expect a preamble before the question, and I expect you to get to your question very quickly indeed.

Council of Economic Advisers

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the Council of Economic Advisers. (S4O-00054)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Council of Economic Advisers will continue and the new council will be announced, in due course, by the First Minister.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

When the Government and the Council of Economic Advisers disagree, as we know they did in the previous parliamentary session on many occasions—on energy, education and the constitution to name but three—should the council’s advice be ignored or should it be listened to and acted upon?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government will consider advice from many individuals and organisations in the course of its work. We set great store by the work of the Council of Economic Advisers and we consider all the recommendations that it makes to ministers. It is unlikely that any group of independent-minded individuals will produce advice that the Government can and should accept in all circumstances. The Government is elected on a series of manifesto commitments and on a political proposition to the public. It is for ministers to defend that proposition and the decisions that flow from it. Clearly, it is incumbent on us to consider carefully the recommendations and contribution of the Council of Economic Advisers, which are warmly appreciated by the First Minister, me and other ministers.

Suicide Prevention (Glasgow)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive how much funding has been allocated by Glasgow City Council for suicide prevention in the last three years. (S4O-00055)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Under the concordat that was drawn up in 2007 between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, funding for local suicide prevention action in all local authorities, including Glasgow, is drawn from the overall funding that is provided to local authorities. Decisions on local spending priorities are the responsibility of individual local authorities in light of local need and circumstances.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The information from mental health charities that are working in Glasgow indicates that that funding has been significantly reduced, particularly in the past 12 months. How will the Government meet the health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment targets on suicide reduction by 2013 if Glasgow City Council is not supporting the charities, particularly given the disproportionately high rate of suicide in Glasgow?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Each of the 32 local authorities in Scotland has a tailored suicide prevention action plan, which sits alongside the choose life action plan that was launched by the Government back in 2002. The intention behind the strategy is to reduce overall suicide levels in Scotland by 20 per cent. To date, suicide levels have been reduced by 11.5 per cent and progress continues to be made. It is important that local authorities such as Glasgow City Council work in partnership with our colleagues in NHS Health Scotland to make the national strategy and local suicide prevention plans work together.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Following the seminar on the identification of suicide clusters and the reporting of suicide in old and new media, which was held jointly by Samaritans and the University of Edinburgh in the Scottish Parliament on 1 June, what discussions will the minister initiate with Scotland’s media to ensure responsible reporting of suicide, which would help to prevent further tragedies by minimising the likelihood of copycat suicides?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I was able to go along to that seminar for a short period and to hear some of the evidence that is being gathered from around the world on copycat suicides that take place on the back of what can only be described as irresponsible reporting by some media outlets. I encourage the media in Scotland to continue to act in a responsible way to ensure that we do not encourage such behaviour, and I would be more than happy to work with the researchers at the University of Edinburgh and with Samaritans on how we can improve the situation in Scotland by further reducing the number of suicides that occur here.

Rail Services (Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been achieved in assessing the business case for re-establishing local rail services between Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed. (S4O-00056)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

A study examining the opportunities for service enhancements across the wider Edinburgh to Newcastle corridor is on-going and should be finalised later this summer. It includes investigation of the case for local services between Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed. When the study is completed, it will be published on the Transport Scotland website.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I must declare an interest, as a member of Rail Action Group East of Scotland.

I know that the minister is aware of the project’s significance. Can he be more specific about the timescale for providing interested parties with access to the report that MVA Consultancy produces? Will he agree to meet me, constituency member John Lamont, office-bearers of RAGES and key stakeholders in the area to discuss the findings?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The report is in its final stages and a process is under way between Transport Scotland and MVA Consultancy to sort out some final issues. That process should take place fairly quickly, but I cannot be more specific than to say that the report will be finalised over the course of the summer. Once it has been concluded and published, I would be more than happy to meet the local member and others who have an interest in the project.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I work very closely with RAGES, which campaigns for the re-establishment of local train services and the reopening of Reston station. Although RAGES has always welcomed the positive noises from the Scottish National Party Government on the project, it would like to see more concrete action and progress. Does the minister believe that Reston station will be reopened by the end of the parliamentary session in 2016?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It would be extremely foolish of me to say that in advance of receiving the report, the delay in the production of which has been caused, not least, as a knock-on result of Network Rail’s production of the east coast franchise timetable. We are moving ahead on the issue quickly. We would like to see the best possible services being provided in that part of the country, but we must wait to find out what the report says. There is not too long to wait. As I said, as soon as it has been published, I will be happy to meet the member to discuss it further.

Ninewells Hospital

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with NHS Tayside regarding Ninewells hospital. (S4O-00057)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I last met the chair of NHS Tayside on 9 June, at which time I discussed with him the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate’s report on Ninewells hospital.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary referred to the extremely disappointing follow-up report that the HEI carried out in April. It identified failings on cleanliness in Ninewells hospital, which had been raised in an inspection six months previously and had not been dealt with adequately. The microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington has proposed that hit teams be set up to ensure that inspections are properly followed up. Will the cabinet secretary consider that proposal?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As I am sure Murdo Fraser knows, there is a process in place to ensure that any recommendations that are made in reports by the HEI are followed up and that action plans are agreed by the relevant board and the inspectorate. Indeed, the report that he rightly draws attention to was a follow-up report—it was produced as a result of the inspectorate going back in to ensure that previous recommendations had been implemented.

I share Murdo Fraser’s disappointment that, in the case of Ninewells hospital, not enough progress had been made against the initial recommendations, and I discussed that with the chair of NHS Tayside. We have a robust system in place in the form of the inspectorate, and I have every intention of ensuring that that leads to the improvements that we want to see.

Just for the record, I point out that, as is the case throughout Scotland, infection rates in the NHS Tayside area have come down dramatically. Although we will always look to ensure that the inspectorate’s recommendations are fulfilled properly, it is important to point out that infection rates are much lower than they have been in the past. It is important that we keep that downward pressure on them.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept those comments, but I want to press the cabinet secretary a little further. The problem is one of repeated failure—that is not a criticism of the inspectorate. Professor Hugh Pennington says that we must have a much more proactive approach. Will the cabinet secretary at least consider the possibility of having, in addition to the HEI, a hit team that can go in to manage a situation when there has been repeated failure in a hospital?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I did not take anything that Murdo Fraser or Richard Simpson said as a criticism of the inspectorate, which I think has shown its worth since its establishment. I hope that members across the chamber know that on this issue, in particular, I am open to others’ ideas and will always give those ideas due consideration. However, I emphasise that the process that takes place after the HEI issues a report is not a passive one. There is already a system in place to ensure that recommendations are followed up and that scrutiny is applied to ensure that improvements have happened, but I will continue to consider all reasonable and sensible suggestions about how we can further strengthen that system and ensure that we have the best possible regime in place.

Wind Turbines (Local Agreement)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to enhance the role of local people in agreeing sites for wind turbines when these are to be located close to their communities. (S4O-00058)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Planning modernisation has introduced enhanced opportunities for people to get involved at earlier stages in the planning process, and recent online planning advice for onshore wind has reaffirmed that role.

Shortly, the Scottish Government will publish a renewables route map, setting out how it will meet challenging new targets. The route map will set out our ambitions for locally sourced energy and will include consideration of public engagement. In addition, we will consider the responses to the Government’s consultation “Securing the Benefits of Scotland’s Next Energy Revolution”.

As was stated in a written answer to Mary Scanlon last week, we are

“proactively seeking to further improve the consenting system and promote best practice, in particular by instigating and leading the European GP Wind Project. This EU-funded project identifies good practice in reconciling objectives on renewable energy with wider environmental objectives and in the active involvement of communities in planning and implementation.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 June 2011; S4O-00051.]

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

In the context of local engagement, would it not be helpful to clarify further the guidelines on where wind farms should be sited, how cumulative impact should be addressed and what contribution each area of the country is expected to make to a national target for onshore wind power?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Our planning guidelines on wind farms are set out clearly in Scottish Planning Policy, which is supplemented by online planning advice. The online planning advice, which was launched only in February this year, includes advice on how to prepare spatial frameworks for large-scale onshore wind farms and advice on onshore wind, which deals with detailed siting matters for turbines. It suggests that securing support from local communities ought to be an area of focus for planning authorities. If Adam Ingram has ideas on how that advice could be supplemented, he should feel free to write to me and my office.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Some wind farm developers offer to buy a property that will be affected by a development but are willing to pay only part of the price agreed, with the balance being paid only if they get planning permission. Does the minister agree that it may be worth while looking at a formula to ensure that developers pay home owners fair compensation in situations in which property values are adversely affected by the close proximity of a wind farm development?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I said in reply to Adam Ingram, the online advice can be supplemented. If Dave Thompson wishes to discuss those points with me, he should feel free to write to me and I will look at the issues that he has raised.

Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive how many compulsory redundancies are estimated and how many full-time equivalent student places in the further education sector will be reduced, as a result of reductions in funding by the Scottish funding council. (S4O-00059)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Prior to the election, ministers wrote to the principal of every college in Scotland to seek an assurance that they would not make any compulsory redundancies. Nearly all colleges have now given a commitment that they will seek to avoid such a step unless as a last resort, with at least seven going further and giving an absolute guarantee. Colleges have also agreed to maintain the same level of activity as in 2010-11 in the forthcoming academic year.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The dictionary definition of “compulsory” is “required; mandatory or obligatory”. The definition of “voluntary” is:

“brought about or undertaken by one’s own accord or by free choice”.

Eighteen academic staff at West Lothian College are to lose their jobs. I have spoken to several of them who do not want to leave their posts but have to do so, because the course that they teach has been withdrawn and there is no job left. Are they subject to compulsory or voluntary redundancy?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member will be aware that colleges are independent institutions. I am happy to meet him about the individuals that he mentions, but I stress that ministers have no power to direct colleges on such matters, because such powers as we had were taken away by the previous Labour Government in 2006.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Without pre-empting the detail of the green paper on reform of the governance of the college sector that was committed to in the Scottish National Party manifesto, will the minister say what improvements in accountability learners and staff can expect from any changes and whether he foresees an effect on senior management decision making in colleges?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Government has already made it clear that we will take a comprehensive look at college sector governance. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning plans to say more about that next week when he makes a statement to the Parliament on 29 June. However, I understand the concern and disquiet that has resulted from college management decisions to implement a reduced budget for the 2011-12 academic year. I take seriously the concerns that some members of staff and students have raised. Only yesterday, I met a member of staff from Edinburgh’s Telford College who had such concerns. The Government intends to listen closely to all those views and particularly to those who call for improvements to the democratic accountability of college governance arrangements.

Integrated Transport (Scottish Borders Council)

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Scottish Borders Council regarding promoting an integrated transport network in the area. (S4O-00060)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The reinstatement of the Borders railway will facilitate an integrated transport network in the Borders area, improving social inclusion and community accessibility. Transport Scotland currently meets with the Waverley railway partnership, of which Scottish Borders Council is the lead authority, on a monthly basis to discuss project matters. That is in addition to specific meetings on the various workstreams and quarterly joint committee meetings that are attended by Transport Scotland and all three partnership authorities.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sure that the minister will be aware that several bus routes in the Borders are under threat, and he will know that there are growing concerns about the viability of the railway to Galashiels. Does he accept that unless there is an integrated transport network serving all parts of the Borders, fewer passengers will be able to access train services on the Galashiels railway, therefore further undermining its viability?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member will know that the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to the Borders railway and has made substantial progress already.

Many of the decisions on bus travel are for the individual bus operators. However, through the bus service operators grant and our concessionary travel scheme, we provide substantial support to services across Scotland. It is for local authorities to choose to support particular routes as and when they see fit.

In addition, on integrated travel, we have completed a five-year programme to procure and roll out new smart-enabled ticket machines to the entire bus fleet in Scotland. That is the largest integrated ticketing scheme implementation anywhere in the world to date.

Planning (Community Involvement)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the principle that any local community should be closely involved in planning issues within that community. (S4O-00061)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

“Scottish Planning Policy”, which was published in February 2010, recognises that effective engagement with the public can lead to better plans and decisions and more satisfactory outcomes, and can help to avoid delays in the planning process.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Is the minister aware that there is concern in my constituency regarding the potential development of an area that is known as the Dreghorn polo fields? A number of community groups wish to acquire the land to manage it for the benefit of the community. Does the minister agree that communities should be involved in planning decisions, especially those involving the removal of recreational spaces in a community?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As the member will be aware, the proposal that he mentioned is currently before ministers on appeal against the council’s decision. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the particulars of the case. I agree with Gordon MacDonald that communities should be involved in the planning process. Community engagement is reflected in all aspects of the planning system.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00065)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Two weeks ago, I met the First Minister and told him that we want to support legislation against sectarianism, but I expressed serious concerns about the timetable. He told me that the football clubs were demanding that he legislate before the start of the season. Yesterday, both Rangers and Celtic said that the bill was too rushed. The Law Society, the churches and Christine Grahame, the convener of the Justice Committee, all agreed. The Lord Advocate said that the bill does not necessarily have to be in place before the football season. Does the First Minister now regret not acting for four years and having to squeeze the legislation into two weeks?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I listened this morning to the comments that were made across the chamber. I always listen to our partners in the enterprise to try to eliminate sectarianism and sectarian displays from Scottish football. I accept—I think that everybody accepts—that we have a majority in this chamber but we need consensus. On this issue above all, I want consensus; I want consensus across the chamber and across our partner organisations.

I ask Parliament at half past 12 to agree—unanimously or near unanimously, I hope—to the bill at stage 1 to allow consideration to continue. I will then propose that business managers, in consultation with the convener of the Justice Committee, discuss a new timetable that will allow for further consideration and evidence to be taken on the bill in advance of formal consideration of stage 2 amendments at the Justice Committee. Stage 3 proceedings would then follow in the usual manner for a public bill, with the intention behind such a timetable for discussion being that the bill would be passed by the end of this year. If Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill at 12.30, I will ask Bruce Crawford to initiate discussions with business managers.

What we say in this place on this issue has huge ramifications across society, so I hope that we can allow for the probability—the certainty, even—that each and every single one of us wants to eliminate sectarianism and sectarian displays from Scottish football, and that each and every one of us wants to eliminate sectarianism from Scottish society.

What we do as a Parliament and how we avoid the opportunity to attack each other on who said what when, or who did what when, is an important part of that joint message. I hope that the Parliament will accept that there is a huge and genuine urgency in the matter, and that it will also accept that this Government wishes to achieve consensus in Parliament and throughout Scottish society.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I welcome the fact that the First Minister has listened to the concerns about the timetable. It is certainly the intention on this side of the chamber to support the principles of the bill. I made it clear that we want to support the Government in legislating against bigotry in football and, indeed, anywhere else.

To achieve consensus, however, we have to try to get the approach right. This week’s examination of the bill has not helped with that. At her appearance at the Justice Committee, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs struggled to clarify what actions would be caught by the bill. Indeed, the Lord Advocate had to return to the committee yesterday to provide further clarification. In the spirit of achieving consensus, I ask the First Minister to clarify now how actions such as singing the national anthem or blessing oneself could be considered a crime under the bill.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I advise Iain Gray to look at the words of the minister and those of the Lord Advocate, who was actually making his first appearance before the committee. As the Lord Advocate explained, these things depend on

“the facts, the circumstances and the context”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 June 2011; c 101.]

as has always been the case with many offences in Scots law.

I am going to avoid the obvious temptation of saying that, in dealing with this subject, we have to be prepared to recognise that each of us has a bona fide interest in driving sectarianism out of the game of football and out of Scottish society. The bill that has been introduced is, I think, clear in its intent and purpose and can be clearly implemented. The objections that have been raised against it are not—by a vast majority—about intent or even content, but about whether enough time is being allowed to give wider society, and the groups and interest groups that we carry with us, their say on the bill. That was one of the points that was made by the Labour spokesperson in this morning’s debate. What I am offering in good faith to the chamber is exactly the opportunity to do that.

Given that offer, given what people have said in the debate and given what is—believe me—the reservoir of good will from people across Scottish society to a Parliament that is prepared to take action on this matter, cannot we now go forward on that basis?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

If the First Minister had listened, he would have heard me say that, yes, we can go forward on that basis. However, that does not mean that we can sidestep difficult questions about legislating on such a difficult and sensitive area, or questions about the way in which the legislation, which we want to be put in place, will be implemented.

Concerns have been raised this week not only about the timescale, but about resourcing implementation of the legislation. Les Gray of the Scottish Police Federation said that he supports the bill, but it will not work without resources and the financial memorandum is not enough. Given that we all must prove that we are serious about legislating properly and ensuring that legislation works, will the First Minister make any commitment with regard to the additional resources that will be required to implement the legislation and make it work?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The resources will be in place to ensure that the legislation is implemented effectively. I know that Iain Gray will be the first to acknowledge that the evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and from the responsible police officers who are in the front line, which demonstrated their strong welcome for the legislation and their confidence in their ability to implement it, is a factor that I am sure carries sway with people across the chamber in their wish to support it.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

One of the statements about the bill that the minister made this week—and which I welcomed—was that this would not be the beginning and end of legislation or other action to address sectarianism and bigotry. As the First Minister well knows, we have for some years now argued that we must at community level, and through educational measures in particular, work to root out this aspect of our society. What other measures does the First Minister envisage will follow consideration of the bill, that will go beyond football into wider society and, indeed, beyond legislation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad that Iain Gray has given me the opportunity to state that the legislative arm of the actions of the joint action group was only one of six workstreams and that the other five workstreams will report to the Government in the next few weeks. Obviously, we will want to share that work. One useful aspect of that timetable—and, indeed, of the new timetable for legislation—is that it will enable people to see that legislative action is only one of the initiatives that are being taken in football. Moreover, initiatives in the game of football form only one part of the initiatives that will be taken across society. Again, I say that I listened to the debate this morning.

The support for community-based organisations working against sectarianism has in the past few years been greater than ever before. In financial terms, over the past four years a budget of £224,000 has become a budget of £525,000. I think that John Park said in the earlier debate that he had come across the organisation show bigotry the red card. Both Iain Gray and I attended the launch of that organisation. However, what is perhaps more important is that in the coming year the funding for its valuable work is £120,000. That organisation is coming to the attention of members and the wider society in football because it is one of the many groups that are being funded by the Government at the present moment. The community initiatives, the educational initiatives and particular organisational initiatives will continue to be supported in a co-ordinated fashion.

However, I am grateful to Iain Gray for giving me the opportunity to point out that the legislative arm is only one of the initiatives on how we will drive this evil out of the game of football. I listened to every aspect of the debate and I have spoken to many of our stakeholders, whose urgency and support in this matter are absolute in terms of their determination. I hope and believe—and I take people at their word on this—that by making available the timetable for fuller consideration, we will be able to carry the Parliament unanimously, and together exorcise and drive out this blight from our game of football and from our country.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00058)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will meet him on Saturday, alongside the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and others when the Duke of Rothesay takes the salute at the armed forces and veterans parade that forms part of the celebrations for armed forces day.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

We all agree that we must deal with sectarianism, which is vile, odious and utterly unacceptable. The imperative of the majority Scottish Government is to get the bill right, so I welcome the common sense that has broken out and the Scottish Government’s recognition of the need for a longer timetable. I am not given often to praising the First Minister, but he has shown maturity in accepting that his Government had not got the bill right. I say to him well done for accepting that and for putting the bill on to a much more realistic footing.

It seems that, under the bill as drafted, there are circumstances in which making the sign of the cross or singing the national anthem could constitute a crime. Within the bill, criteria range widely: from hatred, to behaviour that is threatening or offensive, to behaviour that is likely to incite public disorder. Can the First Minister confirm that, with the new timetable, the Scottish Government will look at whether the criteria in the bill are consistent with previous legislation? Now that a more extensive consultation process is possible, will the Scottish Government consider whether the criteria as currently listed are adequate?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I believe that the criteria are adequate. I think that anyone who listened to and saw the Lord Advocate explain exactly those points before the Justice Committee yesterday would be fully satisfied that the nature of the bill is well within the tradition of Scots law, because it depends on facts, circumstances and context. Some of the stories that have been running this week have no basis in reality in that sense. The Lord Advocate gave excellent examples to explain that, so that even non-lawyers like me would understand. I thought that his evidence put the canard to rest. We should bear that in mind.

The bill—as Annabel Goldie knows, the legislation has two parts: offensive behaviour causing public disorder at and around football matches, and threats that incite serious harm or religious hatred—is certainly the type of legislation that is required. With the extra time that will be available for discussion and debate, I am sure, and I welcome Annabel Goldie’s indication of this, that the Conservative Party will be able to support the legislation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will broaden this out a bit. Even if over the longer timetable—which is very welcome—we address some of the ambiguities and uncertainties in and maybe even limitations of the bill, the sad and ugly truth is that in certain parts of the west of Scotland we have embedded and entrenched sectarian attitudes. The bill is only part of solving the problem. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy to deal with that repugnant culture that, sadly, runs more broadly than just in football stadia or certain pubs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We must not underrate the importance of not tolerating sectarian displays in our national game. There is a consequence of that having happened for generations in Scottish society. Sometimes societies decide that, on the balance of opinion, enough is enough and something requires to be done, and something that was acceptable or seen to be tolerated a generation ago no longer has a place in a civilised society. The two things are interlinked because of the importance of our beautiful game of football and the power that it has for good, which must be mobilised—a point that was made by our church leaders during the debates that we had earlier this year. The work on driving sectarianism out of football is only part of a wider approach involving community and educational initiatives. I would be glad to go through the organisations and the import of what is being supported. We must not underrate the extent to which the two are connected.

If Annabel Goldie will allow me to do so, I will make an observation. It is rather unfortunate if I contributed to the sacking last week of Paul McBride QC as an adviser to the Conservative Party; I did not mean to do so. I have been following closely what Mr McBride has had to say about the bill. He is an advocate with huge experience in Scots law and his support for the bill has been fully in the traditions of Scots law. His has been one of the powerful voices arguing for action to be taken as quickly as possible.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

In the light of new information regarding the cost of the Edinburgh trams project, does the First Minister agree that the time has come to instigate a full public inquiry?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am supportive of a public inquiry into the trams project. We should let the City of Edinburgh Council continue its deliberations, but a public inquiry would be an excellent thing to do. I say as gently as possible to the member that, if it comes to a public inquiry, some people and some political parties will have more to worry about than others.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00062)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When politicians change their minds, we must welcome their reflection and consideration rather than complain and criticise. I offer my thanks to the First Minister for listening on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I welcome that acknowledgement from the Liberal Democrats. It gives me great hope that, as we go through the process as a Parliament, we can set an example to wider society, as Scotland would expect.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of the issues that we had with the bill was that we believed that, in the main, the powers already exist to tackle the fundamental problems. We believe in voluntary action, community measures and using existing law before exploring further avenues for legislation. First, I ask the First Minister to request that the Lord Advocate publish an assessment of the use of existing law. Secondly, I ask him to prepare and agree a renewed comprehensive anti-sectarianism strategy to root out this cancer from Scottish society.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am desperately trying not to break the consensus that I am trying to establish. I am sure that Willie Rennie did not mean to do that; however, he should look at the Lord Advocate’s evidence to the Justice Committee yesterday. He laid out, in precise terms, the difficulties that breach of the peace as a general offence has been running into. He gave, as an example, something that would seem to most people to be a clear racial matter but which was ruled not to be a breach of the peace because of the interpretation of that general offence by the court. The argument that the existing framework of law is adequate is not borne out by the facts.

The other aspect is that both the proposed offences are indictable offences that carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and limited fines. That is an indication of how seriously we take such manifestations of sectarianism. If something becomes an indictable offence, it is because this Parliament and this society decide that no more will it be tolerated in our country.

I agree with Willie Rennie that a strategy across society must be part and parcel of the approach that is taken. However, we must not underrate the importance of legislation as an indication by the Parliament—by law makers—that some things will no longer be tolerated in Scotland.

2012 Olympic Games Legacy

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the reported concerns of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that any legacy for Scotland from the 2012 Olympic games will be “absolutely minimal”. (S4F-00060)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We share some of those concerns and will continue to work with partners to ensure that Scotland gets as much benefit as possible from London 2012. However, the United Kingdom Government has made it clear that the whole UK should benefit from the Olympics, which is a promise that should be redeemed.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Is not it the case that against a range of measures—the number of events to be hosted, the number of tickets for Scottish schoolchildren to attend events, the number of tourists coming to Scotland, support for grass-roots Scottish sport, and contracts awarded to Scottish companies—there is no discernible benefit to Scotland from the 2012 Olympic games? In addition, the Olympic committee continues its attacks on the integrity of the Scottish national football team.

Does the First Minister agree that when about £1.7 billion is being spent on regenerating the east end of London to stage the Olympic games, Scotland should receive the Barnett consequentials of that figure, which could go towards Scotland having a legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth games of which we can all be proud?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Jamie Hepburn draws attention to a very important aspect. It is a view, incidentally, that is shared absolutely by the Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland. We have put in a joint submission arguing exactly that point.

The point is this: there has been substantial expenditure on sporting facilities in London, and it is perfectly acceptable that that should happen when major international games come, but a great deal of the expenditure has been specifically on transport and regeneration in London and not on the games themselves. If that argument is accepted, that expenditure should have been Barnettable, according to the Treasury funding formula.

Until recently, there was a question about whether that expenditure was truly necessary for the games. However, Sebastian Coe, the chief executive of the organising committee, said very recently about the Olympics:

“This is not a £9.3 billion sporting project. Seventy-five pence in every pound that will be spent is going into the regeneration of London.”

Let me be quite clear: although Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland believe that regeneration spending in London is a good thing, it is also right and proper that that expenditure, under the current funding rules, should have been Barnetted and an appropriate share given to the other three nations in these islands.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

The First Minister might recall that the Parliament’s cross-party group on sport warned about the loss to Scottish community sport that would occur because of the Olympic games, so I heartily back his efforts to claw back some of that money.

However, I ask him to take account of the legacy for Scottish sport if the Olympic committee has its way as regards the football team. Will he add his support to the Scottish Football Association in advising young footballers that it would not be a clever move for them to play in a British team?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I give my total support to the Scottish Football Association in that matter. The SFA has to look after the interests of the game of football in Scotland and our presence in national and international arenas in the long term. It has to look beyond one particular tournament, and at the best interests of the Scottish game. I believe that it is doing that and that not just the Government but the Parliament should give the SFA their total support in the view that it has expressed on moves by the Olympic committee.

Investor Confidence

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to provide confidence to investors in light of the report by the Ernst and Young Scottish ITEM club that the prospect of continuing constitutional change could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. (S4F-00073)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am sure that Elaine Murray would be the first to welcome the Ernst and Young direct investment report 2011, which has just identified Scotland as the prime location, measured by employment creation, for direct inward investment. I hope that Elaine Murray acknowledges that the Government and its policies might have had some small part in that wonderful success.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Indeed, the Ernst and Young report is extremely interesting. It points out, for example, that the public sector in Scotland began to cut jobs well before overall public spending constraints were introduced. It is a very interesting report indeed. However, if we can get back to the economic recovery—

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

If you would, and go for a question, Ms Murray.