Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2014
Sorry, but I had better press on.
The frustration of the anti-sectarianism campaigners Nil by Mouth has built up to such a stage that, before the October recess, they requested that members of the Scottish Parliament find time to debate the report—not the act. Dr Morrow has stated that
“it is vital that the report and its implications are considered.”
The Herald, a publication that is normally fairly sympathetic to the Scottish Government, ran an editorial on 6 October that reminded the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs that she had welcomed the findings of the Morrow report and, in response, had stated that the Government
“will change Scotland for the better and build sectarian-free communities to benefit all of our people”.
The editorial stated:
“It is bizarre that this report ... has not been debated in the Scottish Parliament.”
It asked:
“How is the work progressing? Are the outcomes being monitored? Is the spending appropriate? What will happen when funding runs out next year?”
Those are good questions. Many of us would be interested to learn the answers, and I hope that the minister may be able to provide them today.
The advisory group recognised that Scotland was at the start of a journey and called for political leadership. Indeed, that was its first recommendation, so it is disappointing that, to date, the Scottish Government seems to have been reluctant to show that leadership—certainly, in Parliament.
The Government’s response to the advisory group’s report appeared, in some ways, to be an abdication of responsibility, as it pointed out that some of the recommendations did not relate directly to the Government. That is not the point. We need to know whether the Government is taking matters forward, how it is doing so and which recommendations apply to it.
The Scottish Government’s response to the report states:
“The Scottish Government recognises the need for a broad and holistic approach”.
We agree with that. It also states that the Government has
“written to key organisations inviting them to respond to the recommendations”
that apply to them by the end of June 2014.
In a way, that makes it even more surprising that four months on from that deadline the Scottish Parliament itself still has to discuss the recommendations. In the absence of the Government being prepared to use its time to initiate debate on this important report, Scottish Labour has offered some of its time to start the process.
The report highlighted some key aspects of sectarianism in today’s Scotland: that it varies significantly by geography, class, age, gender, occupation and community; that the impact varies from community to community and is affected by historical religious antagonisms, class, political association and commercial interests; that the people involved are not necessarily still actively participating in a faith community but have cultural affiliations that can lead to an us-versus-them mentality; and that sectarianism is not just overtly aggressive bigotry or anti-Catholic or anti-Irish prejudice.
In terms of addressing sectarianism, the report recommended, as I have already indicated, the importance of leadership at all levels. The advisory group did not consider that new legislation was required and felt that existing legislation on human rights, equalities and hate crime should be applied. Members might recall that Opposition members in Parliament made that very point when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was being discussed.
The advisory group also recognised that to learn more about sectarian attitudes further research was needed on, for example, the role of gender victimisation and social media; the impact of potentially divisive events such as parades or, indeed, football matches; employment discrimination; and other forms of tension within sections of the Christian faith. Crucially, the report found that organisations and institutions at all levels must take responsibility for sectarianism, which of course includes the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, taking a cross-party approach.
The Government amendment refers to scrutiny by the Equal Opportunities Committee, but that was one session with Dr Morrow and Dr Rosie, and there was no questioning of the minister or of stakeholders. That is not scrutiny, nor indeed was the session in the Justice Committee, which was about the 2012 act. The issue is the report and the responses to it.