The Government’s proposal to tackle sectarian offences, The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, was debated at the Scottish Parliament yesterday afternoon. Alistair Sloan reports exclusively for The Firm on the debate as it unfolded.



There was a disappointing turnout of members in the chamber during the debate given the importance of the issue to Scotland. Some aspects of the debate should cause great concern amongst the people of Scotland.

Christine Grahame MSP opened the debate as Chair of the Justice Committee and provided a summary of the report produced by the Committee. The Committee did support the Bill by majority with only the SNP members of the committee in support of the legislation. One thing that Christine Grahame did say, on a number of occasions, that caused concern was the reference to the Lord Advocate’s draft guidelines.

It emerged during the debate that the Lord Advocate had been close to the committee’s processes and workings, provoking James Kelly to inquire into the propriety of the Lord Advocate of the executive being so close to the legislative function of the Parliament.

What was argued was essentially that Parliament does not need to spend the time ensuring that the legislation is fit and proper because the Lord Advocate is going to issue guidelines.

Mr Kelly drew attention to the fact that s.38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 only very recently came into force and that there is a need for reflection on this piece of legislation. This is vital as potentially much of what is covered by the proposed legislation would also be caught by the s.38 offence. Interestingly in their report on the Bill the justice committee, while finding that the Government had made out the case for there being gaps in the existing law, felt that they had received insufficient information on the s.38 offence. Statistics are not readily available as to how the offence is being used.

Graeme Pearson (who is a former senior police officer with experience of being a commander at football matches) made a similar point. Mr Pearson said during the debate that no stats had been provided regarding failed charges and failed cases under the existing law. A careful analysis of cases under the current law is essential and this hasn’t been done to date. The way in which the Crown Office records these things will make extracting the data difficult, certainly in a way that would prove useful for the purpose of properly examining the way in which the current law is operating.

There has to be hard evidence brought to the table and so far that hasn’t been provided. It’s lacking and that was made abundantly clear from the debate in parliament.

Much was made by the Minister about the Bill having been passed at stage 1. That was an indication that the Parliament agreed with the general principles of the Bill. However, as people have had the time to sit and digest the contents of the Bill and listen to the wider debate on the Bill it has become clear for many that the Bill is simply not fit for purpose.

Many times throughout the debate today there was use of the word “flawed” in relation to the Bill. The Law Society has argued that the Bill does not add to the current law, but will in fact confuse the current law. Michael McMahon MSP described the bill as “draconian” and “illiberal” while Neil Findlay MSP said that it was a knee-jerk reaction to events at one particular match. Mr Findlay reminded those present of the words of the First Minister during his victory speech in May. The SNP might have a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament but that does not mean that they have a monopoly on wisdom.

The Deputy Presiding Officer extended the debate to allow Patrick Harvie and Margo McDonald an opportunity to add their voices to the debate. Mr Harvey said that he was not happy with the motivation of legislation being to send out a message. He also said that aspects of the Bill could do more harm than good and that it fails to address the root-cause of the problem.

Much of the debate focused on the first offence that the Bill aims to introduce into Scots law while the second offence was not examined in great detail. The second offence which the Bill seeks to introduce is not limited to football or even to sectarianism, but is far wider. The Bill is trying to do far too much and lost its focus. This is the essence of what came out of the debate in parliament. The proposed legislation is unclear because it’s not focused enough. Nobody is even sure what is meant by “sectarianism”. Given that the word never actually appears in the Bill it’s not too much of an issue. However, if the purpose of the Bill is to tackle sectarianism then that term needs to be defined, regardless of whether it appears in the Bill or not. It needs to be clear what it is that parliament is intending to do. This certainty is needed for the people of Scotland. They need to know what is and what is not going to be an offence under this legislation.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission made this point in their evidence to the Justice Committee and James Kelly picked it up in his contribution to the parliamentary debate.

Where problems are arising, and they certainly are not arising on the same scale as was the case in a small number of games last season, the current law is being utilised quite effectively to deal with offenders. Those who were involved in this type of behaviour last season have been dealt with quite adequately under the existing law and some are even residing in our prison establishments for, what would commonly be referred to as, sectarian behaviour.

I’m not actually persuaded that anyone actually learned anything from the debate today. It was essential that the debate took place as it is a vitally important issue and it did highlight the significant number of fundamental problems that exist with the proposed legislation. It is quite clear that there is significant support in favour of the principles of the Bill. However, there is a significant divide on the actual content of the Bill.

There appears to be just one party in parliament who are in favour of this Bill becoming law and their views are not widely held throughout wider society.