 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first meeting of 2016 of the Public Petitions Committee. Haven't seen any colleagues a happy new year. Once more with feeling, yes. It might be the last time I say it, but we've received apologies this morning from John Wilson, who told me he has another event that he has to be at this morning. It brings us to agenda item one, The first item of business is to seek the committee's agreement to take agenda item 4 on witness expenses in private. The members agree. That brings us to our next item of business, which is consideration of three new petitions, two of which we will take evidence on from the petitioners. The first is PE1592 by Shaheen McWade on group B, strep, information and testing. Members have a note from the clerk. They have the petition, they have SPI briefings and submissions from Shaheen herself. I welcome Shaheen to the committee this morning. She is accompanied today by Craig Blackie and I invite Shaheen to speak to her petition and then we will discuss the issues that you raise over to you, Shaheen. This is my son, Zac. He is raising him here today. I am here today to explain my reasons for setting up my petition to raise awareness in better testing for group B, strep. I discovered I was pregnant in December 2014. My fiancee Craig and I were delighted. At the time we were both smokers and drank alcohol occasionally. As soon as I discovered I was pregnant we both stopped smoking and gave up alcohol in order to give our baby a healthy start in life. In addition to that, I researched all foods that are harmful to unborn babies and also took pregnancy vitamins. I did all of this to protect my unborn baby and give him the best possible start. I had a trouble-free pregnancy and worked until I was eight and a half months pregnant without even a single day off due to any sickness. My water broke while I was at home and I informed a hospital who advised me to go over to be checked, which I did. The midwife advised me and she wouldn't bother swabbing me as she could see that my water had broke. I was sent home and after only a couple of hours my contractions started. I went back to the hospital and was told that I was in labour and eight and a half hours later I gave birth to my beautiful healthy son, Zach. We were kept in overnight and let home the following day. For the next two weeks my son continued to grow into a happy, healthy, content baby. I couldn't believe how lucky I was as he never cried other than when I changed him when he was hungry. My family and friends were amazed at how often he smiled as new born babies tend to just sleep. My health visitor also commented on how she had never seen a healthier baby. On the 14th of August, when Zach was 12 days old, he was unsettled, which is unusual for him. Over the next few hours he became worse, what I called an ambulance. He was rushed to a hospital with a high temperature and the doctors worked frantically on him. A few hours later Craig and I were giving devastating news that Zach had bacterial meningitis and that he probably would not survive. He was then transferred to York Hill hospital and sadly passed away on the 15th at 3pm. I can't begin to tell you how hard broke Craig and I are and also immediate families. Zach is the first grandson in Craig's family and the first grandchild for my parents. I followed up meeting with the consultants at York Hill and I was horrified to discover that Zach had developed meningitis due to contracting group B-step during labour. I had never heard of group B-step and at no point during pregnancy or labour was it discussed or tested for. I since discovered that group B-step can be identified by carrying out a simple swab test, which I understand costs £11. Had I been tested after my water is breaking I would have been given antibiotics, which would have almost certainly prevented the risk of my baby contracting group B-step. I have also read the national screening committee's previous report in 2012, in which it was decided not to screen all pregnant women for group B-step, but we used the risk-based strategy to decide who should be tested. There will only test women if they are shown symptoms like protein and urine, water is breaking early and a high temperature in labour, all signs I had but were never picked up on. Therefore does this not suggest that this approach is not working and needs to be changed immediately? The point of the reading is that the test is not 100 per cent reliable, then why are they not setting aside funding to produce a more reliable test? That also suggests to me that it is more of a let's just take a chance attitude, a decision that cost my son his life, it cost me and Craig our future. It denied our parents and families the love of their grandson and nephew. Millions of pounds are spent educating women on the danger of smoking and alcohol during pregnancy, all of which I took very seriously and ensured I didn't do. The NHS didn't do the same for my son, so that was not giving the right to live. I've been denied the right to have my son in my life and watch him grow up. Pinsted, I have been sentenced at a lifetime of heartache to lose a baby's devastating. I know that it could have been prevented this torture. That's us to change. Shane, I thank you very much for giving your evidence. It's very courageous of you. I extend on behalf of the committee our sincerest condolences at the loss of your child. I know that you've worked very hard with the organisations that have looked into that. That committee itself has looked at this issue before. We were given the same information that there's a review taking place, that there's investigations taking place. When we closed the petition that was before us in 2014-15, it was because we were expecting a report to come in front of us and the timescale for that might have been around 18 months. In that time, you've had the tragedy that's befalling you and your family for the sake of 11 pounds, but you also said in your evidence that the signs that they looked for, which would have indicated a need to give you an antibiotic, were there. Either yourself or on behalf of the organisations that you've been working with, what's your view on that decision not to inform people that there is a test available? In my opinion, I think that it's neglect. The NHS took a gamble with my son's life in the lost. I showed the symptoms of group B strep at the time. I didn't know what group B strep was. I didn't know what those signs were for. My son then picked it up and there was nothing that could have been done once it had already triggered inside him because he had no immune system. He was only 12 days old. His body was too small to fight the infection and he lost his life because of it. The investigations that you've done since the tragedy, do you think that the staff who were there, and I'm sure they did a very good job, and I've never heard you complaining about the way that you were treated by the staff, but do you think that the staff were aware that they should have been looking for those signs in order to check that something needed to be done if it was necessary? The NHS worked on the risk-braced strategy. When a woman has shown these symptoms, she should be tested. I think that I should have been tested, yes. I've been trying to arrange a meeting with the midwives to talk to them about my care from when my water broke and tell me that we're a little home from the hospital. I'll open up to other members of the committee who might want to ask questions. You've touched on my heart as well that the suffering that you and your family have gone through. The point that you're trying to make—I'm just wanting to make sure that I pick this up correctly—is that you would like to see this done automatically, simply because staff members tend not to pick it up and you just don't want to make sure that nobody else has the same suffering that you've had to go through. Yes, I don't want any other parents and families to have to suffer what we've had to go through. I don't know what the NHS's position would be on that. It's been the exception of the fact that there's a financial implication, but I would tend to agree with you in terms of a very, very small price to pay for such a huge difference that would make to people's lives and the quality of life. I'm not the greatest mathematician in the world, but I don't think that it takes a genius to work out with around 55,000 births in Scotland last year at £11 per birth. If not every mother takes the opportunity to have the test, it's still a figure of between £500,000 to £600,000, which could be spent to save a number of lives. Do you think that that's a price worth paying? If you calculate how £11 compared to the cost of Zach's care when he was took to hospital from ambulances to brain monitoring equipment, all the antibiotics he was on, the trip from Washi General to York Hill hospital, the brain scans, all that calculated compared to £11, that would actually save the NHS money. Anyone else want to, Angus? Thanks, convener. I notice from a briefing that we have that there were parliamentary questions asked on the 19th of November last year by Jim Hume, MSP, who received a response from the Scottish Government, who said that there was currently no recommended test for group B, Streptococcus, that would be suitable for routine antinatal screening. As a result of that, no cost benefit analysis had been undertaken by the Scottish Government. In a further section that we have received, it states that the Scottish Government already refers to group B, Streptococcus, in the ready steady baby booklet, and that that has currently been reviewed. A revised section is due to be published at the end of this month, it says. Did you receive that booklet? No. After that was passed away, I had got in touch with the group B, Streptoccus support group, and they advised me that they had brought a petition to themselves back in 2014. That was to get more information in the ready steady baby booklet. I had never heard of that. I was never given that as far as I know that it is an online booklet. I was never given that from a midwife. Okay, and it was never referred to? No. Which health board are you in? Which health board covers your area? NHS one, I shall say. Okay, okay. Can I just come back? I know that we are talking about figures and costs, but I do not think that is relevant for this committee to worry about the costs. If we carry out more tests, the costs will reduce anyway, but more importantly, the issue really here is that we need to try to pick up people who are vulnerable from this. That is the most important thing. If it is on a checklist, then it is going to get done. If it is not on any checklist, it is not going to get done. Clearly, it was not done even though the patient needed to receive the medication. I think that it is an issue about what checklists are available and who does that work, and we need to make sure that that is in place. In terms of costs, we spend billions on so many other things. We are talking about life, so I do not think that cost is relevant, to be honest. I am looking for suggestions now to how we take it forward, Jackson. I do think that there is from the briefing that we have received a long track record within this committee and within Parliament throughout the lifetime of this session of Parliament of raising this issue with the Government. When you look at the kind of collected tone of response, it seems to be underpinned by a lack of urgency to find a way forward. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government, but with some specific commentary, not just to ask for the reaction to the petition. I am interested in two points that have been made by the petitioner. First, I would like to know how the ready, steady baby booklet is made available. The minute you say booklet, it implies to me that there is in fact a publication that is handed along with some sort of advice. Clearly that was not the case. If it exists online, who is responsible for directing potential parents' attention to that? Is there any knowledge or evidence as to what the uptake of accessing that publication is or any follow-up to establish whether that is taken place? Secondly, I think that the powerful testimony of our witness—it is difficult to incorporate that, but I would like to see it done—is that, yes, there was a tremendous personal loss in the death of their son, Zach. However, there was also a financial cost, which I think that the petitioner detailed. Of course, it is very easy to set to one side when you are, as you say, talking about somebody saying, well, it is half a million pounds if we do not know. Clearly we are now at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is difficult to start talking about scheduling evidence sessions with ministers and anything like that now. I think that we want a very direct letter saying that it is clear that this has gone on for some time. However, we have not really, I think, advanced matters. To keep being told as a review, and it might, and it could, seems to me to be falling short of a problem that we could actually, with a bit of will behind the effort, do something to resolve. No, I think that that is certainly my feeling. For the record, Shaheen is my constituent, and I have met with Shaheen to talk to her about the circumstances. She is well versed in the arguments around this. One of the strongest arguments, I think, is the fact that this is done in other countries, and it has been proven to be successful in other countries. Why we appear to be in the vernacular, swinging the lead, when it comes to actually making progress on this, hiding behind arguments that there is not a particularly good test, well, let us find the test, let us invest in the money to get the test so that we can make sure that it works properly. Secondly, are we investing enough in training so that staff can identify that when there are signs that there should be a test done and an antibiotic administered, then people are adequately aware that that should happen. We have to make sure that action is taken on this because, while we have been waiting on a review taking place, Shaheen and I am no doubt other people have suffered the tragic loss of their child when it could have been avoided. If the committee says anything at all, we should say that that is not acceptable. We should write to the Government and ask them to ask what action they are going to take to take that forward because we cannot sit any longer waiting on reviews. We need to see what definitive action is going to be taking. Take the evidence if it is required from other countries and make sure that we do what they do because it is working in those other countries and should be able to be made to work here. Just on that, convener, given that you have mentioned that it is working in other countries, given that the petition will remain live, can we get some more information from space with regard to which countries it is operating successfully? I thank you very much for coming along. As I said, you and Craig have suffered a terrible loss. I am very courageous of you to use your own personal experience to try to help other people, but we appreciate the fact that you have done that. I thank you very much for coming before us this morning. I will suspend the committee for a couple of minutes until we change witnesses. Our next petition this morning is PE 1593 by Paul Quickley on behalf of Fans Against Criminalisation on a full review of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Scotland Act 2012. Members have a note from the clerk, the petition itself, a spice briefing and submission from the petitioner. I welcome Graham Pearson and James Kelly to the committee. We also expect to be joined by Paul Martin and Jackie Baillie, but Jackie Baillie has also sent a letter to the committee, as has Cara Hilton, who expressed in her support. John Wilson, who couldn't join us this morning as a member of the committee, also sent me an email when he was making his apologies to say that he is supportive of the terms of the petition. I will pass over to you, Mr Quickley. You have a few minutes to introduce the petition and then we will discuss what you raise with us. Thank you very much, Michael, for the introduction. Thanks to you all for having us here to discuss the petition and share our concerns about the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2012. I will give a quick overview of who we are and who we are here to represent. We are members of Fans Against Criminalisation, a protest group that began in 2011 to oppose the introduction of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2012. We have since campaigned against it while also trying to help people who have perhaps been charged under it while collating a good evidence in regards to those cases. First of all, I will make a very quick point that our petition and the reason that we are here today is not at all to defend sectarianism. We are not here to defend any hate crime, but we would note that sectarian behaviour, racist behaviour, homophobia and sexism were all covered under previous legislation. Our contention with the act is more in regard to the Offensive Behaviour that is factored within it. What that ultimately means is that it creates a new law that criminalises offensiveness. The difficulty in that is that offensiveness is obviously subjective. Members of the committee might find offence if I might not advise further. It becomes almost practically impossible to police. As a result, there becomes a broadening blugging of what is legally acceptable. The impact of that is that football matches is that young men and girls, primarily, are being arrested and dragged through the courts. The Stirling report, for example, showed that court cases go on far longer than normal court cases, but the conviction rate remains shockingly low and people's lives are ultimately ruined in the process. In terms of the law itself, what we object to is the fact that it specifically discriminates against football fans. It creates a law that only applies to one demonised sector of society, and we disagree with that on that basis as well. The reason for the petition is specifically that we feel that the Scottish Government has veneigd on their promise to review the act, which should have been done in 2015. What was put through as the review was a consideration of one piece of evidence in terms of a report carried out by the University of Stirling, which we would contend with selectively quoted. For example, it was not mentioned when that was published. Within that piece of research, it showed that, for example, because so many resources had been diverted towards policing offensiveness, there was a rise in violence at football games, it showed that many judges had very key concerns about human rights implications of the act because of the curtailment of freedom of speech and the curtailment of political expression. Those are the issues that we feel still have to be properly reviewed. The other piece of evidence was a pinion poll that was carried out by Ywgurff that we felt was somewhat skewed. When the act was initially put through in 2011, there was an attempt to rush it through with emergency legislation, and the then First Minister stated that he wished to build a consensus around the act. However, we are over five years on since that particular point, and the consensus of opposition is all that remains. Every single opposition party, including independence, voted against the act at the time. As far as I am aware, none of their positions on that matter have changed. There still remains concerns from lawyers, judges, civil rights groups, football fans and football clubs themselves. The problem is that these people have not been given ample opportunity to present their evidence in any sort of review process against that act. All that we have heard is one side of it. Given that the controversy surrounding the act continues, given that the incredibly low conviction rate demonstrates that the act does not work, we feel that now is the point that is clearly in the public interest for us to have a full review of the act and allow the different stakeholders to have their opportunity to input in the process. Obviously, we would want to be a part of that, with our view to having it repealed, ultimately. Thank you, Paul, for introducing your petition. I will start off by asking a question about the understanding of the way that the act has been implemented. FAC was set up at the outset, and a lot of the media coverage in the general discussion around this is an issue that relates to Celtic and Rangers. However, my understanding is that, as time has gone on, more and more football fans' groups have joined or supported the FAC campaign. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. I would say that, even at the start, there were protests held by fans in stadiums all across the country, for example Celtic fans, Rangers fans, even the Scottish national team, Merwell, Hearts, Hubs, all held demonstrations against the act in the stadium. More recently, what we have seen is a bit of an upsurge in terms of other fans taking more of a noted infest in it, particularly Hamilton and Merwell. Their fans have been subject to quite disgraceful behaviour as a result of the act. We have had those two groups of fans, as well as Rangers fans, began to join our campaign against it. As I say, it is not about Celtic and Rangers, but it is not about sectarianism either. It is something that affects all football supporters, and that is why we brought it here today. We have also talked about the reason why the act was introduced, but recently, as recently as yesterday, there have been motions put down in the Scottish Parliament by MSPs who have tried to explain the rationale for the legislation as being somehow to try to protect the Irish community and the Catholic community from sectarianism and offensive behaviour. Does FAC have an opinion on that? That proposal was put forward by John Mason MSP, and John Mason has repeatedly made the claim that the legislation was primarily about defending Catholics and the Irish community against abuse. He is the only person, as far as I am aware, in the entire country, in the entire Parliament, who is making that claim. He makes that claim on the basis of, as far as I understand it, no evidence whatsoever. In a sense, we are at a loss to understand how he can make the claim and why he continues to repeat it. I am not aware of any Catholic organisation, including the Catholic Church or any Irish community organisation, who agrees with the legislation and has asked for that protection. We are, indeed—I speak not as FAC here, but as a member of the Irish community and as a Catholic—the victims of sectarianism and racism. The most recent figures show a 14 per cent rise in offences against other whites, which I believe are the Irish and the Polish. It is not to say that that is not an issue, but we simply do not agree that the legislation in any way contributes to resolving that particular problem. In your opening comments, Paul, you mentioned the interpretation that has been put on the research that has been done by the Scottish Government. When the Scottish Government reported to Parliament some months ago a claim was made by the Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, that, in discussions with yourself, you had endorsed and supported elements of the action that the Scottish Government was taking, particularly in relation to rehabilitation, could you clarify exactly what discussions took place and what your view is on that? What I will do is pass that over to Jeannette. If you do not mind, because I was not at the meeting with Paul Wheelhouse, so I will pass that over to Jeannette. We did have a meeting with Paul Wheelhouse before the ministerial statement was made some weeks before a fortnight, as I recall. We made it very clear that we were entirely opposed to the act and, as part of that, we pointed out that it was primarily criminalising young men who otherwise would have no contact with the criminal justice system. We certainly pointed that out. Mr Wheelhouse, as I recall, specifically asked us, would we then assist him in spreading the message to young people to divert them from criminal activity? We pointed out that we were completely unable to do that, since we did not think that what they were alleged to have done amounted to criminal activity. We rejected the idea that singing a song in support of Irish independence was in itself—for instance, as an example—or wearing a T-shirt that was called for a free Palestine was in itself a criminal offence. We would be unable to call for young people to desist from doing that. When he made the statement that we supported his diversion from prosecution scheme, that was entirely a false statement. We had made it clear to one of his advisers, because we had been advised that he was going to make that statement. Immediately prior to that meeting, we told Mr Wheelhouse's adviser that he should not make that statement because we did not support the scheme. He went ahead and made the statement. We thereafter wrote to Mr Wheelhouse and said, You have made the statement. We told your adviser that we did not support it. No time did we say that we supported it. Please retract the statement that we support your scheme, and he failed to do so. You have researched a lot into legislation and the types of legislation that are enacted around this issue. There have been reviews of legislation that have taken place before. Have you done any analysis of the type of review that normally accompanies legislation when it has to be reviewed, and have you compared it to what has been claimed as a review in terms of the offensive behaviour act? I do not think that we would have any specific examples of any of the types of legislation that might have been previously reviewed. Our understanding would have been at least similar to the initial process when the act was brought in, which allowed for various stakeholders to submit their evidence, and some people were invited along to the Justice Committee who dealt with the act when it was first being pushed through. Our understanding was that, at the very least, we would have an opportunity to hear our concerns, given that we have been the primary opposition to that act over the past four years. We have been quite vocally opposed to it. We have also collated quite a bit of our own evidence, and we assumed that we would have the opportunity to submit that in some form. Obviously, we were not given that opportunity, and given the amount of opposition, and given the amount of stakeholders who remain opposed to that act, we feel that some form of review that would allow them to submit their own evidence would give a more on-compensating picture of what that act does, as opposed to just taking it from one piece of evidence, as the review did in 2015. I think that it is also important to know that the single piece of evidence that the Government relied on, the authors issued a statement—two statements, in fact, at the time—saying that this whatever they were doing, it was not the review. It was an evaluation that they understood would inform and contribute to a review, but it was not itself the review. They were making it clear that what they were about was not reviewing the act. In fact, they very specifically said that the evidence that they provide is not either in support or in opposition to the act. It was simply reviewing all the evidence around it, as commissioned by the Scottish Government. Even if the Scottish Government had relied solely on that piece of evidence in its entirety, they would have been pointing out things like the fact that Paul has already pointed out, that the police themselves gave evidence that, in fact, they are concerned that, while they are policing and putting resources into offensiveness, violence has taken place. Violence, which has been on a long-term decline, is starting to pick up a little bit away from football grounds—not at football grounds, but they are unable to police that because they are policing and offensiveness. They would have been able to point out how few successful prosecutions were also in the report. They would have been able to point out how sheriff's views are very strong opposition views. Most of the ones who are in favour are in favour of the alleged objectives of the act, as opposed to how the act has been framed and implemented. They would have been able to point out that sheriffs are really concerned about the question of what constitutes offensiveness. They would have been able to point out that, in fact, when they surveyed stakeholders and asked what kind of offensiveness they actually observed or experienced, the overwhelming majority was swearing at opposition players and management, followed by swearing at opposition fans. When you ask football fans what offensiveness are you encountering, what the Stirling research showed was its swearing. Before I open up to the committee, I have one other point. Have you spoken to people who were interviewed by Stirling University in relation to the review and their awareness of what was actually being undertaken? Our understanding of it is that they did not think that that was going to be the review of the act. As Jeanette Cade, Stirling University, actually published statements on her website to specifically note that that was not to be taken as a review of the success of the act, we did meet with the inter-viewers prior to that being released as a review. They certainly noted to us that that was not the review and they were not particularly sure how it would be carried out. Even at that point it seemed to be their opinion as well that that would have to inform the review as opposed to make up the entirety of the review. The team did not interview FAC formally as part of the process until after the interim report had been produced. They indicated that somebody from the team had spoken to me. That happened very early on but it was as part of my professional role. I was never told that I was being interviewed or spoken to in relation to a piece of research that was commissioned by the Government. I had a discussion with a research student who turned out to be part of the team but she did not indicate to me at that time that that would be part of it. Later on they relied on that as being the fact that they spoke to FAC. Ultimately, in the end, we had some discussion with them but it was after the interim report was produced. I was also interviewed by the Stirling University team. I was not told in advance of the interview what the purpose of the interview was and I only discovered later that I had been interviewed as part of that team in the information that then became what has been called the review. Clearly, at the time that this piece of academic work was being pursued, it did not relate to a review of the legislation. I am not saying that I felt as well that it was conned in any way. The answers that I gave were the same answers that I would have given if I had known in advance but the fact is that I did not know until after the interview that I had taken part in was what subsequently became called the Scottish Government's review of the act and I just do not believe that that is a particularly good way to conduct the business. I will open up to members of the committee to comment on the points that have been raised. Jackson. Surprisingly, only the devolved Parliament in Switzerland has written into its articles a statutory obligation to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation that passes. Although there is an opportunity in this Parliament, very little legislation is scrutinised. Consequently, I have come to the view that that should become much more apparent in the face of many of our bills. Therefore, I am supportive of the aim to undertake a review of the petition, but I should say that, having agreed to that proposition, I have not necessarily prejudged what the outcome of that review would be. As you say that you would want it specifically to direct to an objective, I would support the idea in principle because I think that it is a healthy thing for parliaments to do, particularly on legislation that is designed to change social attitude. However, I have got two specific questions, which I am interested to see if you can help me with. You refer to the 22 per cent conviction rate. Of those 22 per cent, what were the worst offences and what was the sentence that was received on conviction? Do you know? It is not possible from the Government figures to answer that question very directly, but I will do it as best as I can. The 22 per cent is not a figure that the Government supports. That is taking all the charges in the lifetime of the act, so it is across the whole period of act, and the number of convictions ensuing one is a proportion of the other. We have had discussions with the statisticians who work on that, and what the Government quotes as conviction rates are not actually conviction rates as we would understand them, which would say in any one period how many people have been charged and what proportion of those have been convicted. As Paul has already pointed out, the timeframe that it takes for a case to go through the course does not correspond with the reporting period of the stats. That is a complicated way round of saying that the statistics that the Government quotes are low, but in fact they are even lower, because it is the more difficult cases and the ones that are likely to be found not guilty that actually take the longest. We are saying that they are 22 per cent. If you say what are the worst offences, the Government statistics are divided up in terms of the various elements that are mentioned in the act. There are things like homophobia, racism, whatever it might be, and then there is another category. The other category is, as I understand it, generally held to be support for what they call terrorist organisations. That is the other category. That, as we understand it, is the only set of behaviours that would not otherwise have been covered by existing legislation. It is quite a small part. It is about 17 per cent in the last set of figures, so it is not the majority. The majority of offences or the majority of behaviours for which people are charged—those are not convictions, they are charges—are the things that they could have been charged with under existing legislation, such as racism, homophobia and all those kinds of things that could have been charged under potentially breach of the peace with section 74 religious aggravation or those other types of charges. On the sentences that people get, will they range from that there have been, I think, only two present sentences? I think that there have been two present sentences very early on. The rest of them are community service orders, sometimes football banning orders and that type of thing. In a number of cases there have been absolute discharges, so no sentence whatsoever. The only other thing that I would like to add to that is, just when you referred to the others, that would also likely include, as you spoke about, swearing, which is what—it is fundamentally what—you know, there was quite a lot of Mullerwell and Hamilton fans, who were due at a derby match for swearing at opposition fans, so those kinds of things that might happen that cobs out with Celtic and Rangers, that would come into the other category as well. I think so. I can just very quickly add that it is helpful for members of the committee to understand precisely what we mean by that. The two motherwell fans that were referring to at 18-year-olds, who were chanting, well, well, if you're well, I won't say the full word, and were held from—it was a Friday night game. The Monday was a bank holiday. They were held in Greenock prison, not in a police cell. They were held in Greenock prison from Monday night to Tuesday morning and charged under the Offensive Behavior Act for something that I think most of us would have thought merited no more than saying, come on, boys, mind your language. Okay, thank you for that. That was comprehensive and very interesting, and it does suggest a slight lack of clarity in all of that too. My only other question is that you're here representing fans against criminalisation. The slight worry that I sometimes have is that things get rolled into a large basket of anecdotal evidence and it was said by and I've heard that. I'm interested to know as individuals what direct personal experience you have had of the act. I think that what you've seen is a complete change in the culture of policing in the way that football fans are treated going into a football match. That doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to be dragged out of a stand or dragged out of their bed and going into a police station to feel the effects of the act. What you're seeing is an increased police presence most of the time, which is entirely unjustifiable. I've certainly heard situations whereby you're filmed from the moment that you get off the bus, the supporters' bus, whatever ground it might be across the country. I've got the game and then all afterwards you're stopped and searched. I had a situation whereby Celtic played a team called Wren in France in 2000. I can't quite remember when it was, but what happened was when the act was coming into play. There was an increased police presence and I was standing in the square with Celtic fans and a police officer came up and asked how you were doing, how you were getting on at university. It seemed like a direct attempt to intimidate me to show that they had collated this information about me and it was almost this officer saying, we're keeping an eye on you, you better watch your behaviour yourself. In spite of the fact that I hadn't ever been in trouble with the police, I hadn't ever found myself charged or arrested or anything of that nature. From my own experience it pales in significance when you compare it to what other people have faced and I'm sure that Jeanette can fill in about some of the direct things that we've faced when trying to protest the act, for example at the SNP party conference in St Aberdeen, so I'll let her fill in about that. In terms of our direct experience, like Paul, I have neither been charged under this act or indeed any other act. As you can quite clearly see, I'm a middle-aged woman. I travel to the football with other people, some of whom are sitting behind me and some of whom they won't mind me saying they're even a bit older than me and I find myself in that context, whereas in no other context in my life am I treated in the way that I'm treated as a football fan, because as soon as I become a football fan, I am filmed, I'm stared at, I'm searched, I've always travelled on Sunday and the bus was searched twice. The attitude of police officers I think is very dangerous. It's not going to provoke a reaction in me, because that's not who I am, but I think it's intimidating, it's provocative and the act has created a very poisonous, and this is the most dangerous thing, a very poisonous relationship between the police and young fans and that's in nobody's interest. In terms of protesting against the act, fans against criminalisation have even, this is not using the act but using other legislation, we have been prevented from protesting, we have been intimidated while protesting, we've had at least seven police complaints upheld, one of them we went to Aberdeen to protest out quite legitimately to the lobby outside the SNP spring conference, we were immediately served with that, I think it's a section 12 notice under the public order act, there was 19 of us there, there were other groups protesting, trade union groups and other groups, much larger numbers had no difficulty whatsoever, we were served with a public order act, our age range that day went from seven to 73. The police subsequently apologised and said that that should not have happened, we've been followed from Glasgow to Aberdeen by people from the football intelligence unit that day despite the fact that there was no football match on that day, simply because we were going to protest against the act, we've been intimidated and harassed inside courtrooms when myself and another colleague go to take notes when offensive behaviour cases are being held and I understand what you're saying about anecdotal evidence but we are very carefully collecting evidence, we have a contact form and an information form on our site which we ask people to fill in, we follow up cases, we attend cases, we take very detailed notes, we analyse the government statistic, so I would like to think that while you could characterise what we're saying as anecdotal, it's no more anecdotal than collecting evidence from focus groups, which is what the sterling evidence was. I can honestly say to you that as somebody who's followed football for decades, that before this act I never noticed the police, they were clearly there, they were clearly carrying out their duties in terms of making sure people were safe but if you asked me how many police were at a given game or what they were doing, I would have been unable to tell you because I don't remember ever paying any attention to them and that is, it seems to me, how it should be since the act or in the run-up to the act, I now find myself that every game is almost an ordeal in terms of how the police conduct themselves. Okay, thank you both, thank you. There are games now even in the Premier League in which there are no police present within the ground? Yes, I would assume there will be. And would it not be the case that the majority of SPFL games have a very limited police presence driven because clubs have to pay for the cost? Well, there will obviously be some games that will be deemed as a lesser risk, so there will be, yes. Do you accept that simply the level of convictions might not be the criteria to use because that would apply also to rape and sexual offences if you wish to review or abandon? No, because I think that that would get entirely off topic. I think that when you look at more of the evidence that suggests, as I say, that cases drag on for much longer than other cases, that's what it says in the Stirling report, that it shows because of the nature of the act that it's very difficult to define what is offensiveness as I've said, offensiveness as subjective, so if you're going to criminalise offensiveness, you're going to get, in my opinion, a low conviction rate. Now, we oppose the act, regardless of what the conviction rate is. We oppose the idea that these things are criminal, but the conviction rate simply serves to demonstrate that this act isn't working. Sorry, can I just throw in there? If conviction rates are not the correct things to be looking at, I think that maybe you should direct that question to your own community safety minister and the previous community safety minister who both relied on conviction rates in discussing that. In terms of, it used to historically be the case, and I think that it still is, that Catholic officers within the RUC and within the PSNI were targeted for killing. Is that a sectarian? I'm sorry, I've been hearing about it and some of the event. I was asking you a question, Mr Puglayer. Is that a sectarian attack upon a Catholic officer within the PSNI? No, I don't see how that's relevant at all to our prediction. I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Do you think it's a sectarian act to target a officer within the PSNI because he or she is Catholic? It's a sectarian act to target anybody for anything because of their religion in a negative way. That's a sectarian act, but actually we were handed these. We've committed witnesses to come to talk about a petition on the Offensive Behaviour Act. If you wish to discuss murder, then I think that this is not what we were asked to come here and discuss. You've now raised the issue of murder with us. I think that I've got the answer that I wanted, Ms Finlay, but I still have a few more questions if you don't mind, convener. Do you think that the mother and the family of Ronan Kerr and indeed other police families who have lost loved ones might be distressed by what could be described as songs that venerate their killers? What songs do you refer to? Well, songs that venerate for dissident republicans. Unless you can be specific about what songs you're referring to. I've given you a specific question. Well, you haven't. Is this a song that you know? No, I say it. Well, it might not be a song. It could be a chant. It could be a statement. Do you think—I will put the question to you, Mr Quigley—do you think that the families of the likes of Ronan Kerr, who lost a loved one because they were murdered for being a Catholic officer within the PSNI, could be distressed, upset or indeed angered by chants or songs venerating their killers? First of all, I would say that, as far as I'm aware, no such song exists, but of course if such a song were to be, then obviously the families or members of the families affected would be distressed by it, of course. What about songs that venerate the killers of pretty soldiers? Well, yes. Well, their families may also be distressed, of course. What would you think of motions in the Scottish Parliament that urge commemoration of the Easter Rising but would lead to you being arrested at a football match, if you were to say the same thing? Well, yes, that's exactly it. What happens is, as a result of this act, people are basically being told that, with the purchase of a match ticket, there was the right to political expression now. It doesn't necessarily just relate to—I assume you're relating the firm to the James Connelly issue, but obviously, as well, there has been an issue with Celtic fans attempting to be arrested for wearing Palestine t-shirts. For example, as well, John Mason has said that he feels that fans who wear Yes Scotland badges at football matches should be susceptible to police action. It just demonstrates very clearly how difficult it becomes when you start trying to curtail freedom of speech and particularly freedom of political expression. Mr MacAskill has raised that issue. I think that your reference was to the, frankly, rank hypocrisy of anybody who can say that they wish to support a statue to somebody who took part in an armed uprising and may well have done, although I don't know what the historical evidence is, may well have killed a British soldier. He wants a statue raised. He also wishes to commemorate, I think quite rightly, the 1916 uprising. He's raised that because he thinks that, somehow or another, he's going to deflect the fact of his own hypocrisy and saying that if we were to equally, or anybody, I don't say we because I don't say that I sing those songs at football grounds, but if anybody were to sing those songs at a football ground, commemorating exactly the same actions, exactly the same activities, that somehow or another that would be criminal, whereas Mr MacAskill's own views on that would not be criminal. I don't think that it's what he set out to do, but I think that it sets out to this committee precisely the problem with this act, because it makes criminal actions for football fans which would not otherwise be criminal, and that cannot be right. It's certainly right that football fans should be subject to exactly the same laws as the rest of society, but they should not have actions made criminal, which in other contexts in other places would not be criminal. That cannot be right. The expression of a view is the expression of a view, and quite frankly, people expressing views of all kinds, political and otherwise, at sporting events, is as long as politics and sports itself. The point that was made by Ms Findlay, do you not accept that the evidence has been given both by the current Lord Advocate and the previous ministers, that it's about context? It's what you do, where you do it and how you do it in making a political statement in a political gathering is one thing, shouting something offensive at a crowd where people could be stressed as another. Is context not a factor? Sorry, you've just jumped from making a statement of political gathering to saying something offensive. Now, which is that? We're talking about it. Are we talking about it? So let me ask you a very specific question then, if that's what you're asking me. In order to clarify your question, I'll have to ask you a question. If you allow me to clarify the question, do you not accept that it's been made quite clear by indeed the Lord Advocate and the Peel Court that it's context? The context of this act is that nobody needs to be there who is offended. Nobody even needs to know that such a statement took place for this still to be an offence under the act. The context argument has been broadened to a point where it's absolutely impossible for sheriffs and anybody else to really make any sense of it and anything said at any time on any subject as long as it's in the context of a regulated football match could fall foul of this act. Is that really the kind of legislation that you want to have in a modern Scotland? If I can touch on more general aspects of the petition, but perhaps before I do, having read the front page of the Glasgow Herald this morning, it perhaps doesn't do the argument that you're pushing today much good. Now, you stayed in your submission— Could you give us an indication that I haven't read the period? Yes, sorry. It refers to a Sunday's fourth round match at Stair Park in Stonra, where there were some arrests. Now, you stayed in your submission that the act is unjust and unworkable. I think that's the term that you've stated in the submission. Now, a recent analysis shows that there was a 28 per cent drop in charges supported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal under section 1 of the act. Of course, we've had the U Gov poll that you referred to earlier, and I think that you referred to it as somewhat skewed, which was published in June last year, which highlighted that 80 per cent directly support the act. 82 per cent believes that offensive behaviour of football matches is harmful, and 73 per cent of those respondents said that they were very interested in football directly support of the act. With those statistics that show sincere introduction of the act, religious crimes are down, race crimes are down, crimes in relation to individual sexuality are down, and we've seen a decrease in crimes of offensive behaviour at or in relation to regulated football matches in Scotland. How can you say that the act hasn't delivered real improvements today? Sorry, can I just come in on that before Paul comes in? First of all, the U Gov poll does not say what you said. It said that 1,044 people were interviewed. Over 55 per cent of them had no interest or, in fact, more than no interest in football, so less than half of them had any real reason to understand how the act operates. Of those, when they were asked, they were asked, were they in favour of action against sectarianism, and they said yes. They said, thinking of this act, given that it's intended to oppose sectarianism, do you support this act? Frankly, if that's not a skewed question, I don't know what it is, and I'm surprised that the numbers were not high enough. 73 per cent of the respondents said that they were very interested in football directly support the act. That's fact. No, no, no, they don't say they support the act because the question is asked in terms of using favour of action against sectarianism, so it's predicated on the view that if this is action against sectarianism, do you support the act? In which case they say yes, and I'm surprised that it's only 73 per cent, because you would expect it to be higher if that was the case. However, I don't think that we can really rely on that in terms of what you said was a reduction in convictions, a reduction in charges. The number of charges that take place is entirely within the gift of the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service, so in terms of that, it's difficult to comment on whether those charges, because they may use, we've seen evidence that where in the past they might have used the Offensive Behaviour Act, they've now reverted to other acts, so for instance they might use section 127 of the Communications Act, if it's to do with the Communications Act and section 6 of the act, and we've seen evidence of them using Breach to the Peace, as opposed to the act, so we've seen some movement around what charges they use, so that's entirely within the gift of the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service, so it's difficult to say that a reduction in charges is evidence of anything very much. Okay, fair comment. Can I just move on to the diversion from prosecution programme that was mentioned earlier? Now, there's been significant investment in that, I believe, from the Scottish Government. Why, could you maybe expand on the earlier comments, because I would be interested to know why you think that's not working? It's not working, don't mind it, it's... Bill, Australia, we have not had any experience of anyone who was charged on the act, and given the offer of rolling in the cycle programme to prevent them from going through any sort of criminal proceedings, but we did state our opposition to that particular programme just on the basis that, as the United Nations said, what we have an issue with is that we don't think that some of the things that people have been charged with actually constitute criminal behaviour, so to then try and take, again I would assume that this is primarily aimed at young people to take them and take them into some sort of programme and try and tell them that they are wrong and try and teach that sort of behaviour out of them. We actually think that it's quite a dangerous thing to do, and it's not something that we agree with at all. I mean, on a more practical note, we think that it's an enormous waste of public money to take young people in an expensive programme in order to teach them not to swear. Okay, we're going to get some feedback, if we can, on exactly where the figures are regarding any success that it has. Pansala, and then I'll come to the colleagues who have joined the committee this morning. Thank you very much, and thank you very much for your evidence this morning. I know that you've been possibly put in a very difficult position in one or two times, but that's part of life, I suppose, of being a minority sometimes. I know that a number of people have raised percentages. I think that percentages don't mean nothing if you're a minority because, as a minority, the percentages can be so different from the everyday of the mill. If you're an Indigenous community, a host community, your percentages are different. If you're a minority community, those percentages can be totally different. And I think that what I've heard so far, Chair, I think that the government needs to demonstrate to all Scots, and I mean all Scots, that none of them are disadvantaged, nobody within that community is targeted, and that everyone is entitled to equal opportunities in terms of the legislation. No one should feel that they are being intimidated by the police, no one should feel that the justice system is not clear on what charges are being laid on them and how to deal with them. I think that these are all very important issues because no one should ever feel that they are not receiving justice. That's the first point I want to make and what I've heard so far. What I'm getting, convener, from the evidence that I've received so far, I think that the government has a moral obligation to reassess the bill. I think that as long as there is a community out there who feels under threat, under pressure and intimidated, that cannot be allowed, that should not be allowed, no one in our community should feel that they are being undermined in any way. I feel very strongly and passionately that the Government should be asked to review the bill as a matter of urgency so that a very clear message is sent to every Scots that, yes, the Government is going to review the whole act as a matter of urgency. I'd like to, before I go to Collie's, if you want to confirm things. I just want to be a little bit concerned. I don't feel qualified to undertake a review of the act this morning, and I feel that we're slightly straying into almost coming to some conclusive views about the effectors of the act. The petition is calling for a review to take place, and I'm kind of mindful that that is where I think the balance of the discussion should be resting this morning. It's asking for a review, but I think that the questions I've raised about why a review would be beneficial and why it would be necessary. I think that we're entitled to get into that sort of territory to establish just why a review would be necessary. I'll come to colleagues who have joined us this morning. I'll take them in the order that they were here when I arrived at Graham, James and then Paul. I'm grateful, chair, thanks very much. I don't intend rehearsing a great deal of the arguments that have been exchanged this morning. It's a matter of record that I've been against the legislation from the outset, and I think that much of the evidence that we've heard this morning would indicate why I had reservations. If I can ask a couple of questions rather than make a statement in support of the petition at this stage. The First Minister created a summit back in March 2011. The legislation was introduced in June 2011. Did either of you give any evidence, or were you involved in contributing to the debate during the period leading up to the legislation being introduced in Parliament? Yes, I was here at the Justice Committee representing the Celtic Trust, along with representatives of other football trusts from around the country, including the national team. I wasn't myself. Fanzikine's criminalisation was formed just in the media aftermath of that process. From your own experience, did you find that the period leading up to the process of the legislation through Parliament was sufficient to allow consideration of the various views that were out there in the general population? I don't know how legislation is normally introduced in what process of consultation takes place. There were certainly a number of meetings of the Justice Committee, which people gave evidence. It wasn't clear to me that much of that evidence, which was overwhelmingly in opposition to the act, was taken into account. In fact, I can think of no group other than the police who were in favour of the act. It didn't seem that they were taken into account. I don't know what normally happens. I saw no evidence that the concerns that were raised by a number of groups and from a wide range of civil society were taken into account when the legislation was actually framed in the past. Your experience of feeding into the system of government, if I can describe it in that fashion, since, where there has obviously been an on-going controversy about the existence of the legislation, do you feel that there is a process there whereby your views can be properly recorded and properly responded to? We are very grateful to have this opportunity to discuss it today. We have had other opportunities. It has been discussed elements or aspects of the operation of the act and things around protests against the act have been discussed by the Justice Committee, not with our input, but certainly have been discussed. We fully expected that when the legislation was passed, and it was said that it would be reviewed after two years, we genuinely believed and did believe right up to the very end that that would involve a similar type of process where we would come to something like that and other people would come to something like that, a committee, and give their views on how it had worked. We were really very shocked when what happened happened, which was simply that this document was produced. The minister made a 10-minute statement and there was a 20-minute discussion. At that point, I would have thought that the general public would have thought that if something was going to be reviewed, there would be an opportunity for stakeholders to have something to say about it and for there to be a consultation, and that most certainly did not happen. We were quite shocked about that. In fact, what seemed odd to me is that we had discussions with the leaders and representatives of all of the parties represented in the Parliament and they all seemed to believe that that was what would happen as well. It was not just the public. Even the insiders seemed to believe that that would happen. It was a great shock to us to discover that we would not have any opportunity and neither would anybody else to say something about how that act had played out. You talked about the impact on the relationships between the public, in this case fans, as I have described on days of matches and the police. Have you been able to gather what that impact actually means? Have you been able to gather statistics about the impact of this legislation on that relationship or has that something you have not been able to do? That is not something that we have been able to do as of yet. I am not sure what you mean by statistics on relationships. I am not sure how you would gather that, to be honest. All that we can tell you is that, in our experience, we have had a number of very large public meetings and gatherings. We obviously get numerous emails, we have a contact form, so people get in touch with us. In all of that, what we are hearing is that young people who go to football matches now have a very negative view of the police and their role. I understand the role of the police at a football match, primarily to ensure that people safely get in and safely get away. That is my understanding and to manage the traffic. That is really what I see the police's role at a football match. Clearly, if there is any criminality of any other kind, that is clearly their job. By and large, as I have said before, I do not think that you really observed much of that. That is what I think the police are there for. Our understanding now is that lots and lots of young people now have a very negative view of the police. For the most part, that arises from their experience of them at football matches. We know that there are other issues with police around stop and search, and that is targets young people as well. However, if you take that together with their experience of them at football matches, I think that that is very dangerous. For young people not to trust the police and to have a negative view of the police and not to want to engage with the police at all, that is very dangerous. That is what that act has produced. One thing that I will say, just on that, the genetics pointed out that we do not have any collated evidence specifically in regards that can measure that kind of thing. There have been a few instances that have been covered by the national press in relation to police confiscating banners from young fans, stopping and searching young fans, and in some cases even verbally abusing young fans. In the cases that we have spoken to those involved, they do not want to make an official police complaint for fear of the prize. I think that that characterises just how poisonous and just how broken down that relationship has become. In addition to all the other things that have been said this morning about the possibility of a review and what that might satisfy, would it be helpful for a review to analyse as far as possible through public opinion the impact that the legislation has had in respect of the relationships between fans and police officers? Have I think that it would? Yes, absolutely. I think that if that is properly carried out, I think that it is. Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for the opportunity to come along this morning. I do so to speak briefly in favour of the petition. I thank the petitioners for the evidence that they have submitted. I want to speak in favour of the petition on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me and supported the petition and also with concerns about how the act has been implemented. It was quite interesting that Mr McCaskill was sitting on this committee looking at the petition because his department was the one that billed out the act through Parliament. Back in 2011, this was a clumsy political response to a clash between football coaches at the end of an old-firm game and the then-adverse media reports that came from that. That was really what that came from. I opposed the act at the time. I said that it was not fit for purpose. It is clear looking at how things have played out and listening to the detailed evidence that the petitioners have given that that is still very much the case. As Paul Quigley says, the police already have adequate powers to deal with criminal and offensive behaviour around football grounds. They should use those powers where appropriate. It is also clear that the act has caused a lot of confusion among the judiciary in terms of interpretation. There are instances in which different actions have been interpreted differently by different judges in different parts of the country. That cannot be good at all. It has also caused divisions between football fans and police. I was struck by what the petitioners said about the level of police scrutiny. Someone who has followed football has gone back to the 70s in the 80s. My sense is that there was a lot more violence around football matches at that time. What strikes me is that we are now at a time where there is more scrutiny of football fans than ever before. We have to ask the question why that is happening. I have indicated that I have returned to Parliament after May. I will bring forward a bill to seek to repeal the act. In the meantime, the committee could take a huge step forward by supporting the petition and the review, and I would add some to do so. Can you relate yourself? I have been a member of the Parliament since 1999, and I think that it needs to be recognised. I have never received so many unprecedented levels of emails in support of our petition. I think that the petition is very fair because it is calling for a review of existing legislation, and it is put forward on the constructive and positive manner. My experience in dealing particularly with Janet Finlay, who is a local constituent, has been positive in the sense of fans against criminalisation of specific concerns in connection with legislation that has been passed by the Parliament. Clearly, as a result of the email's correspondence, public meetings have taken place since that act has been passed. There are concerns out there, and I think that it would be for the Parliament to have been an opportunity for us to clearly review the legislation and do it in a way that recognises that there are a number of stakeholders who are saying that. One question that I wanted to ask Janet Finlay, and I know that in some of the deals that I have had with Janet Finlay, there are specific answers to that. However, the impact of the legislation is significant for those who have been involved in the judicial process as specific individuals whose careers have been affected by the legislation and by the confusion that occurs, as James Kelly referred to alongside the judicial process. I wonder if Janet Finlay will be able to give some insight into the impact that that has had for those individuals who find themselves part of the judicial process and part of their justice system when there have been some issues concerning how that has been taken forward. We have already made the point that the conviction rate is not high, but in actual fact you suffer a severe penalty just from being charged under this legislation. It is treated differently from any other act. Local fiscal decisions do not make decisions on it. Everything has to be referred up. Everything is treated differently. All the rules are applying very, very stringently in a way that they are not in other cases. I will give you a very specific example. In the intermediate diet of a criminal case, sometimes the accused is given leave not to attend and their solicitor attends. There was just such an instance in the winter of the year before last when somebody was asked to travel from Glasgow up to Dingwall, which is quite a long journey and it was in the winter. The fiscal insisted that they attend for the intermediate diet, which is really only where the defence lawyer shows their evidence. It is a very short hearing. They were made to travel up to Dingwall in the winter in those circumstances. When that individual came back for the full trial, there was somebody there that they were talking to who said that they were also in that position, but they had been given leave not to attend. That person was being charged with a drugs offence. Somebody who was charged with a drug offence was showing leniency that somebody charged under that act was not shown by the fiscal. That is one of the things that happens. People have to attend very long drawn out. Our experience is a minimum of three, often four or five occasions. They have to appear at court. Every time that happens, they have to take time off work or time off their studies. It makes it very difficult that they have to usually let their employers know what is happening. We know of numerous cases where people have lost their jobs. In some cases, not just their jobs but their entire livelihood has been at stake. We are talking about young people, some of whom are teachers or student teachers, some of whom are in the NHS, so they are healthcare professionals who, if they were to have a criminal conviction, would possibly lose their registration and therefore lose their entire career. We are talking about people who have lost jobs. We are talking about people who have had their entire career threatened after years of study and public investment. We are talking about people who have had relationships break down as a result of the stress and the pressure that they have had upsets within their family. Those are overwhelmingly, almost without exception, people who have no previous criminal convictions and who would never have been near a court. Those are not people charged with offences or acts that are at the higher, more serious end of what they might cover here. We are not generally talking about racism, we are not talking about homophobia, we are really not talking about political t-shirts, we are talking about swearing, we are talking about the robust language that might go on between not just football fans but other parts of society, so we are really not talking about something. We are often, very often, not talking about an action where there is any victim, there are often no victims, often the only victim represented in court are the police who say that they were offended. The impact on people's lives is that the costs, many young people who do not, because as we all know the legal aid system is not as generous as it might once have been, so if they are in employment, not only might they risk losing their employment and some people have lost their employment, they are having to pay solicitors bills. You still have to pay that whether you have found guilty or not, so you could be out of pocket by the time you pay expenses for travelling because often you are travelling to wherever, to another part of the country, so you are having to pay expenses, you are having to pay for witnesses, you are having to pay for solicitors. Often in the region of 1,000, 2,000, we have had £4,500 bills. We had a case that concluded recently in Glasgow Sheriff Court where seven young men spent—was it just under two years? Yes, not over two years. No, it was over two years. Over two years appeared in 17 times in court over singing a song and all of them got absolute discharges. A complete waste of money, lives wrecked, finances wrecked—it is an absolute disgrace. Given that you have raised the point about the amount of effort that is made by the police and the criminal justice system to pursue those cases, how many occasions are you aware of of people who have been arrested for singing a song that is deemed to have been offensive? Did the arrest take place as part of a dawn raid where numerous police officers turned up in the early hours of the morning and took that person away, arrested for an offence that was committed and a football ground for which they were arrested later? Is that a common occurrence? That was more of an occurrence when the act was initially brought in at the time. The police tended to be—the other approach was—a bit more full-on. What often happened, what we found was that there would be simultaneous raids, usually about seven o'clock, and it would always be on a Friday morning, in that way that people were held from the Friday until they were able to make court on the Monday over the course of the weekend. We were told, I believe, by Police Scotland that they would cease that practice, but they did not do that, as far as we are aware. There were a few murder-well fans, for example, who experienced similar treatment just over a month ago. There is, obviously, something that is still going on. To specifically pick a Friday morning, it seems deliberately vindictive. That is not just by chance. That is a deliberate choice to do that. Again, it highlights just where the relationships broke down, just why so so many young fans feel a complete distrust towards the police at the moment. As Gyn S.A., it might have been James Kelly that it is in the benefit of absolutely no one that this continues. About six or seven months ago, we had a young 17-year-old Hamilton fan who had an altercation with a student—not a student, not a physical altercation, but an exchange of words after which he left the ground. The following week, his mother awoke in the morning—she is a night shift worker, so she was sleeping during the day—to find two police officers at the foot of her bed who had come to bring her son to be charged. When we have police officers going to those lengths to make sure that young people are charged for really very minor activities, I think that it tells you that the amount of resource and direction that is being focused on this legislation and on football fans, it really does explain to you why it is that football fans are feeling so aggrieved and so discriminated against. When we met with the interviewers for the Stirling research report, they had obviously by that point already conducted interviews with various stakeholders and that included the police at the time. One of the end of the interviewers said to us that the phrase that was used by one of the officers that was interviewed was that when the act was first enacted that they were approaching it with a tactic of shocking awe as the legislation came in to try to make an impact with a heavy-handed approach on the assumption that that would then make fans fall in line, but much of the practices and many of the tactics that were used then can still be seen now. I think that when the Police Service of Scotland is using the phraseology and tactics of the American military, that tells us that we have something to be worried about. I think that we have had a good hearing of this petition. Jackson and Hanzala made suggestions as to how we take it forward and ask for the Scottish Government to give their views on that review. I am just wondering if there is a counterargument or Jackson. I am also interested. The Parliament has, and the petition almost sits to one side, the ability to undertake post-legislative scrutiny. It is not just a matter for Government, it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament itself. I wonder whether the originating committee that had responsibility for this bill might not write to them to understand whether they might be prepared in their legacy paper to recommend that the bill be the subject of a post-legislative review in the next Parliament as part of the work programme that any committee can establish for itself in addition to any inquiry that we make of the Government. I was going to make that suggestion as well, Jackson, so I agree with that, Kenny. James Kelly has made it clear that it is an election issue. The Parliament is coming to the end of its term. We can write to another committee, but frankly, by the time it gets there and they have concluded, they might very well even have concluded their legacy paper. It does seem to me that this is an opportunity that people will have. Mr Kelly is quite clear where he is coming from. People will have the opportunity in May to vote as they see fit, and, to some extent, we should write to the Government as for their plans, but equally beyond that, it is quite clear that you are either for it or against it, and the electorate will decide. I tend to disagree with that. I mean, we all know that there is going to be a host of issues that are going to come up in the election. I do not think that we are going to have a single-issue election. It is not a referendum or a judgment on the Offensive Behaviour Act, but when we do have a duty, as Jackson said, as Parliamentarians, to ensure that the legislation passed by this Parliament is fit for purpose and can be reviewed. I tend towards that argument around that. As Parliamentarians, do we want to see the legislation that has been introduced here properly reviewed and understood? That is what I would be driving at, and I think why we would want to invite the Justice Committee to consider recommending a review in its legacy paper. Again, it will be for that committee to make that decision, but I think that there is no harm in this committee asking for that to be done, as it is right for us to ask the Scottish Government to comment on the arguments that have been made here this morning in terms of asking for that review to take place. Just as I mentioned earlier in my statement in terms of minority views, minority views are not balanced on numbers. They are balanced on principles, rights, human rights and legacy rights. The review is important, and I am also giving the committee an opportunity to review that to pass on the gauntlet to the next Parliament. It is important. I do not believe that we play the numbers game. I think that that is a dangerous game to play. What is more appropriate is to make sure that every person, every score, feels that their rights are being protected, their human rights are being protected, their dignity is being protected, they are being looked after, their part and parcel of the community, regardless of what numbers they are. I think that that is just totally a register to suggest numbers and percentages. I think that what is also important here, convener, is that we all need to feel loved. We need to know that our children are secure. We need to know that our communities are secure. We need to know that we can trust our police force. The police do a very difficult job, as it is, and to complicate life for them in this way is unreasonable. I think that the legislation needs to be absolutely clear that everybody needs to have an equal right in terms of judging what is right and wrong. For that purpose, I think that the act has let people down, the bill has let people down, and a review is important. I think that writing the Government and the committee is imperative. We must do that. I am certainly keen to ask the Scottish Government to respond to the points that have been raised by the petitioners in their petition. I am sure that the Scottish Government will be reading the transcript word for word, if not watching it live. That is certainly a must, as far as I am concerned. However, we should wait for the response from the Scottish Government before we decide whether to refer it to the Justice Committee. There may be points that the Government accepts that will negate the need to refer it to the Justice Committee. I tend to take the view that the Justice Committee needs to start thinking now about its legacy paper and how we are taking forward it. I think that if we bring the petition to their attention, it lets them make a judgment on whether they are a committee. I am not telling them what to do, but if we do not bring it to their attention now, the legacy papers would be completed possibly before the Scottish Government responded, Jackson. I was not proposing to refer it to the Justice Committee. I was proposing to make an inquiry of the Justice Committee. As a counterpoint to Mr McCaskill, there are views of respect. I have spent more minutes discussing the issue this morning than I have in my lifetime spent watching football, such as my interest in the sport. I do not have a preconceived notion. I did vote against the legislation at point, but what has been called for here is a review. I think that I was keen to say in the questions that I put to the witnesses that I was not prejudging in my own mind what the outcome of that review would be, but I thought that the petition and the evidence that we have heard has supported the case for a post-legislative review, which, in any event, I think that this Parliament should be undertaking more as a matter of routine, particularly on legislation that has been designed to change social attitude. It seems to me that the Justice Committee is going to be doing their legacy paper. This has hardly been something that is unknown to them. It is something that is well within their cognizance. It is something that has been written to them, and it seems to me that if they wish to pursue it, they will do so. I do not see any requirement for us to be making any recommendation or referral to them, because, when they look back over the Parliament from 2011 to 2016, it is one of the four most pieces of legislation that has been before them. I have got to try in this capacity to try and reach a consensus so that we do not divide unnecessarily. I will ask you directly, Kenny, do you object to the committee raising the Justice Committee that the petition exists and bringing it to their attention? That is basically all that has been asked. I do not object to it on the basis that it is within their knowledge, but I am perfectly comfortable as long as we are not making a recommendation, but I think that we can say that we had witnesses before us and doubtless they will be considering and their own views can be formed. In that case, it appears as though we have a consensus that we write to the Government asking for the reviews on the request for a review and the comments that have been made this morning, and we draw the petition to the attention of the Justice Committee. Can you say whether there are any comments on matters made that they are not here to rebut any of the issues that are distinct and separate from the Government, and they may wish to have a view? I have no issue with that whatsoever, given the fact that the chief officer who was involved at the time is no longer there. We may have a fresh look at it from the Police Scotland point of view, which I personally would welcome, given that the discussions that I had with the former chief constable of Scotland led me to believe that he did not want to understand the issue and that his arrogance, narcissism and authoritarianism were what drove him towards supporting the introduction of the legislation in the first place. A fresh look at that from the new chief constable would probably be beneficial as well. If we write to those organisations in that manner, we will look forward to their responses. Thank you very much, Mr Quigley and Ms Finlay, for coming before us this morning. We will obviously update you on the responses that we get, but thank you for bringing your petition to us. I will also spend for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to change. The next petition this morning is PE1594 by Richard Burton on behalf of Accountability Scotland on the specification of lying as an example of public maladministration. Members have a note from the clerk, the petition itself and the spice briefing. Do any members have any comments to make on it? I am sure that we all agree that we deprecate lying, but it would be useful to, as a starting point, to find out in terms of the Parliament and the Government what the views of the Scottish Government are in relation to that. I do not know that there is much more that we can do to... Everybody agree that we write to the Government and just ask them to give us a perspective on it? I have to say, I am quite a little about it, but in this, I think, similar to the SPSO, given the references to have the right to respond. Yes. I think that we do that then. We write to the Scottish Government and the SPSO and ask them to comment on the petition. I take it forward and then we will let the petitioner know what the views are when we get them back. That brings us to agenda item 3, our next item of business, is consideration of 11 continued petitions. The first petition is PE1319 by William Smith in Scotland, Robertson on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have information that has been brought to them by the clerk and the submissions that we received back. Members have a view, Angus? I will certainly be keen to hear the response from the commissioner for children and young people in response to the SFASPFL view and the unintended actions that have been set out in that response. I think that it would be useful to know that. We can continue it on that basis. The next petition is PE1477 by Jamie Ray on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation on a gender-neutral HPV vaccination. Members have a note from the clerk, but I should point out that the petitioners contacted the clerks yesterday of the afternoon asking that the committee defer consideration of this petition to its next meeting. This is to allow them to write to the committee in more depth. I understand that the petitioners would like to raise two concerns with the committee. First, the length of time the JCVI is taking to issue guidance on this matter. Secondly, the proposed HPV vaccine programme is not wide enough in its scope. I think that the petitioners may well have some valid points and it would be good to get more detail from them in due course. I would certainly be keen to keep it open until we get further information. The next petition is PE1545 by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. Members have a note from the clerk plus the submissions that we received back. I do not know that we can do much with it, but it is whether we close it or is there still, because of some of the responses, enough scope to leave it open and allow a future committee to have a look to see if there is anything that comes out of the deliberations. I am always reluctant to close petitions if there is still some work around it. It might be that a new committee would look at it and say that there is nowhere where we can go with it, but given that there are still some issues that are outstanding, should we leave it open and just add it in our legacy paper? The next petition is PE1555 by Siobhan Gahrahe on electric shock and vibration callers for animals. Is there any mileage in keeping that open? We have got the answers that we are going to get. I think so. Can we now, given that the Scottish Government has said that it is reviewing the current situation and the current law, I do not think that there is much more of a petition that the committee can do. As I said, I am always reluctant to close them when there are still reviews, but I think that the Government has made it clear exactly what the outcome is looking for, so there is not much more that we can do with it. In case we will close that one. The next petition is PE1561 by Karen Gray on behalf of Rabbits Require Rights Scotland on pet rabbit welfare. Members, have you on how we deal with that? The only thing that we can do is ask them to speed it up, but I do not know that there would make any difference in the long run. The next petition is PE1572 by Parveen Hac on occupational disclosure in trials and sentencing. Again, members have notes on the submissions that have been received. Pretty comprehensive responses, I thought. They basically answer the questions that were put. I think that we can close this one and advise the petitioner. The next petition is PE1573 by Jordan Daley on behalf of TAI, time for inclusive education on statutory teaching of LGBTI-plus issues. It was said at the time, although there was a lot of sympathy for the petition itself, when you are asking to set and stone something in the curriculum, it is not a thing that happens as such. The issues that were raised and the fact that the committee took it forward and asked for such a comprehensive analysis of the situation, I think that the responses were positive, but I do not think that we can actually ask the Government to do what the petitioner asked, which was to set something in the curriculum and force local authorities, education authorities and teachers to teach it in the way that they were asking. I think that they might understand that, but I think that they raised a very important issue, but I do not think that there is anything more that we can do with the petition. The next petition is PE1574 by Freda Burrell on behalf of the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters on HPV Vaccine Safety. Again, we have got the submissions back. I think that we should close the land of rule 15.71, considering that the European Commission is looking at the Norway's and have bairms on Scotland. Our next petition is PE1576 by Oein Martin on blue badges for children with autism and Down syndrome. Again, we have had the submissions back, but I think that we have a pretty comprehensive response. Under rule 1572, standing orders, we might want to close it. Game, and if it does not work out to be satisfactory, has not taken further than to some extent it would be grounds for a new petition, and the grounds changed under a fee, I think, we have done all we can. Okay, so we agree to close it on that basis. Our next petition is PE1577 by Rachel Wallace on adult cerebral palsy services. Murdo Fraser is joined us now to talk to her. Do you want to make some comments, Murdo, before we consider anything you want to bring your attention or raise with us before we celebrate on it? Thank you, convener. Thanks for the opportunity to say a few words. I was very pleased to support Rachel when she came previously to the committee, and I think I recall that session that members were impressed with the evidence that she gave. We have had responses back from the Scottish Government, from capability Scotland to being very supportive of the petition and from the petitioner herself. In relation to the Scottish Government's response, they have suggested a meeting between the petitioner and the minister, and that would be very welcome. I tried on a number of occasions that members might recall previously to get a meeting. I am pleased that that has been offered, and I think we would be happy to take that up. I am not aware of the minister's office having been in touch to arrange that as yet, but I think that I would be keen to pursue that. I wonder whether a private meeting between the petitioner and the minister is sufficient in this case, given that there are much broader issues that are being raised in the petition, and there is an impact on a whole range of adults, other than simply the petitioner herself. Rachel Wallace and I would be pleased to have a meeting with the minister. I would not like that to be seen to be the sole outcome of this particular petition. I would encourage the committee members to consider what further action they might want to take to pursue this, and whether, for example, they might feel it appropriate to ask the minister to come before the committee to answer some of the questions that were raised both in the original petition and in the very detailed response that has now come in from Capability Scotland. Significantly and important, it might be prelude to more than just a meeting about where the Government is going, but the first response rather than getting the minister here, given the times type, would be to just ask the Government, one, will they confirm the meeting, and then two, after the meeting, to perhaps give us an indication of the outcome? Because, until then, I think that we would be prejudging it, but to ask the minister to both meet and return to us, hopefully expeditiously before... Yeah, but I think that we do have to pursue this a bit further. I think that we need to clarify whether the meeting is going to take place. I think that that's a legitimate request, but we also need to know from the Government what they want to do in terms of taking it forward as a clinical pathway, because that's what's been asked here. And I'm not sure that we've got that answer yet, but we could write to the Government on that basis to get a confirmation of the meeting, but also to ask them specifically about the clinical pathway. Is that right? Okay. And we'll take it forward in that manner, but thanks more though for bringing that to your attention. Okay. The final continue petition is PE1580 by Sheila Duffie on behalf of Ash Scotland on guidance for Parliament staff on international health treaty standards. I think that we did get some additional information. Members have on their deaths a submission that's been received from the World Health Organization in response to the committee's request for examples of good practice in other legislatures. Who has provided examples of practice in Governments and Government departments in various countries? And who states that the examples provided are generally more advanced as they concern Government officials in Government bodies and goes on to say that the equivalent practices for legislative bodies are in the process of being developed in some countries? I think this is an issue that the Scottish Parliament had already looked at. If it has been taken forward by who in our other countries is looking at this, I'm sure that the Scottish Parliament would be party to any outcomes that would emerge if there were any issues that need to be addressed in the way that the Parliament deals with the tobacco company. I feel as though we've achieved all we're going to achieve through this. We've identified all the information that we need and we should close the petition. I agree, convener. I think that I'm content with the response that we've received on the presiding officer assuring us that the FCTC guidelines are being followed, so I'm content to close the petition. I agree with that. That brings us to the end of consideration of petitions. I'm now going to private session as I agreed earlier in the meeting.