CELTIC has warned that holding football sides liable for the behaviour of fans risks being undermined by rivals “purporting to be supporters” of the club.

In its response to moves to repeal the controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football (OFBA) laws, Celtic said plans for ‘strict liability’ within the Scottish game could actually encourage “unacceptable conduct in the stands”.

Adding that clubs could bank money for fines rather than invest “in best practice” and re-affirming its “significant concerns in relation to the potential for discrimination against football supporters “ it says the OBFA creates, Celtic added: “By way of example, there is no evidence that the strict liability system operated by UEFA is effective in improving supporter behaviour or reducing the number of disciplinary cases brought by UEFA.”

The Scottish champions were one of several organisations to respond to a consultation by Labour MSP James Kelly, who is attempting to overturn the four-year-old legislation.

Mr Kelly plans to bring forward a bill overturning the Act, amid expectation in some quarters the opposition parties will use their majority to scrap the law, introduced in 2012 following a series of on and off-field incidents the previous season.

Those who made submissions in full support of the Offensive Behaviour laws include gay rights organisations Stonewall and the Equality Network, both of which called for the legislation to be used to increase prosecution of homophobic behaviour at football.

Stating that “homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are a significant problem in football”, the Equality Network said the Act had not been used effectively in dealing with such abuse, adding: “This appears to be an implementation problem rather than a fault in the legislation.”

Stonewall Scotland said: “The issue of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia behaviour at football is far from resolved, and further steps need to be taken to ensure that all fans, players and professionals feel safe and included in our national game. We believe that a detailed review of the implementation of the Act would therefore be appropriate, with the view to looking at where provisions might be clarified or strengthened.”

Elsewhere, newly formed Rangers supporters’ group Club 1872 said the Act “dehumanises football fans” and was “a pointless law passed by a party that I becoming increasingly dictatorial”.

The Crown Office has also responded, insisting it regularly makes submissions to consultations on private members’ bills. It said the Act had been successfully used to prosecute “a variety of criminal behaviour”, including instances where jail sentences were handed out. The Crown also said the Act allowed the prosecution of certain behaviours which could not be “shoe-horned” into other offences.

Human rights group Liberty said it the “subjective discretion” of police officers had led to “misapplication and misuse”, adding: “It is clear from this that non-violent football fans may find themselves inadvertently falling within the remit of the criminal law for simply singing a chant intended to antagonize the opposition and express pride in a football side but without intending to trigger violence.”

In its criticisms of the Act, Celtic added that it was concerned that damage to the relationship between supporters and Police Scotland could have an impact on safety at its ground. It recommended the further adoption of its supporters’ liaison officer as a model which was improving fan behaviour both in Glasgow and elsewhere, adding that it continued to work withy authorities to deal with inappropriate conduct at football.

Mr Kelly said: “The consultation has now closed and it has clear the law continues to provoke a great deal of public interest. I welcome the debate and look forward to discussions with interested parties in the months ahead.”