 We turn now to topical questions. Our first question is from Liam MacArthur. I will ask the Scottish Government the new measures that it is considering to addressing sectarianism and violent behaviour associated with football. Your preferred solution has always been that football steps up to address this long-standing problem with meaningful solutions. It is important for football to demonstrate leadership on this issue, but if action is not taken, we firmly reserve the right to act to rid this vile cancer from our national game. I believe that the vast majority of supporters are also frustrated that a small minority are bringing our game into dispute and are frustrated at the lack of action by the football authorities and clubs. While we would prefer football to take action, we are considering a range of options, including the role of strict liability and the licensing of football stadiums. I would welcome contributions from across the chamber on how we can work together to address this issue. I also understand the independent review of football policing commissioned by Police Scotland will be published tomorrow on 6 March, and we will carefully consider its findings. Liam McArthur I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Last week, DCC Wilker, who served in Northern Ireland for three decades, said that he was surprised at the level of disorder and that, quote, the consistently thuggish behaviour of a very small number of fans is considered normal. Days earlier, Kilmarnock manager Steve Clark, quoting abuse thrown in his direction, asked, where are we living, the dark ages? The cabinet secretary rightly says that the vast majority of decent fans are indeed disgusted by the actions of so-called supporters who behave in this way. Does he agree that they are now looking to the authorities, including Parliament, to step up efforts to combat it? Yes, I agree with everything that Liam McArthur has just said. I also welcome the remarks from DCC Wilker. I thought that they would be very powerful. I also thought that a very powerful quote from PFA Scotland's chief executive, Fraser Wishart, who said that the football pitch is a player's place of work. It is not unreasonable for a player, like any other employee, to be able to work with the knowledge that their workplace is indeed a safe environment, free from violence and discrimination, and that their health and safety is not at risk. I will carefully consider the Police Scotland report tomorrow. I will also be open to suggestions from across the chamber. However, it is for football authorities to step up to their responsibilities. Frankly, they have not done that thus far. It is for them to step up, but, as I have said in my previous answer, if they do not, we will consider a full range of options, from strict liability to licencing to, potentially, several football banning orders, and there are many other options that are currently on the table. Liam McArthur The cabinet secretary for that response certainly echoed the sentiments expressed by Fraser Wishart. Two years ago, Dr Duncan Morrow's report on sectarianism said that, while football was only part of the jigsaw of sectarianism, the continuing reluctance of the football authorities to demonstrate serious commitment on that issue means that strict liability must remain a real and present option. What is the cabinet secretary's assessment of how co-operative and constructive the football clubs have been in the period since? Does he agree that there should be a cross-party approach to looking at escalating penalties, for example, closing sections of grounds in more serious cases? Cabinet secretary. Just for the member's information, Joe FitzPatrick, who is on my left here, he and I both met with the SPFL and SFA before we saw the worst of the behaviour that we have seen in recent weeks, just to press them and push them on unacceptable conduct. While the words were warm, we are yet to see demonstrable action in this regard, and I repeat what I have said in my previous two answers. We would prefer it for the clubs to step up, but if they do not, then we will reserve the right to act. However, I think that the point that Liam McArthur makes at the end of his question is a very valid one. When we do that and we will explore those full range of options, we should do that with as much consensus in this chamber as we possibly can. As I say, a number of options are on the table, from strict liability to licensing to civil banning, football banning orders, as well as other options as well. James Dornan, to be followed by Liam Kerr. The cab secretary will be aware that I have been a vocal critic of sectarianism associated with football, any club, and wider society for a number of years. He will also be aware that I am proposing a member's bill on strict liability, which could include using the licensing system. Does the cab secretary agree with me that although it would clearly be, well, sorry, cab secretary clearly agrees with me, that it would be preferable for the clubs and football to bring in strict liability to themselves, but, if they do not, surely a member's bill or some other way would give this Parliament the power to put the pressure on the football clubs and would be a cross-party way of working to achieve that? Can I commend James Kelly for the work that he has done on this, the strict liability but actually on the white? James Dornan, no. A faux pas, an easy mistake. Do not worry, Mr Kelly, I might come to you a little bit later on. Can I commend the work that James Dornan has done on this? On the wider issue of sectarianism, obviously, with the cross-party group, and he has been a constructive voice in this, what I would say is that he is absolutely right. We know that strict liability remains in the table. It is an issue that we will explore in relation to legal possibilities of that, and I know that the work that James Dornan is doing will keep a close eye very much on that. I should say that, when we have powers in our hands, i.e. on licensing, we will also look very extensively at that issue. Licensing is one option, as every stadium with the capacity of 10,000 or more spectators is required to hold a safety licence. If Parliament was minded, we could look again at the authorising regime for this. We would look at, for example, south of the border in England, where we have the sports ground safety authority, the overarching body that looks into stadium licensing, but we do not have that similar body up here in Scotland. However, I am absolutely looking at whether or not, along with the Sports Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government, whether we should have a similar body up here in Scotland and, along with that body, the appropriate sanctions, such as closing down sections of the ground or indeed stadiums altogether, if it is in the best interest of public safety. Sectarianism is a blight on a national game, and I associate myself with the cabinet secretary's remarks on that matter, and I will be pleased to accept his offer to work closely on that. Can he clarify, do the measures being considered by the Scottish Government involve greater use of stadium bans for individuals who are engaging in such abusive behaviour? How closely are the football clubs working with the cabinet secretary on that? I thank Liam Kerr for the question. As I have referred in the previous answer, Mr Dolfos Patrick and I have been working very closely on this issue. We have met the SPFL, the SFA, and we will meet individual clubs when that request comes, and we have a number of meetings between us that are arranged to that effect. Interestingly, I know that there are some clubs, a minority of them, that are interested in civil football banning orders. At the moment, he will know about football banning orders and the chief constable of Police Scotland's role in that, but there are some clubs that would like to have the power to apply for those football banning orders. I will listen to that argument with an open mind, I have not come to consideration on that yet, and on the other point that he makes. All of us, I do not doubt for a minute that we all have a shared interest in trying to stamp this out of our game. It brings shame on us, all is a country, it brings shame to the clubs that we may support. Therefore, trying to take the entire Parliament with us on whatever option we decide upon will be really important and an imperative part of my role moving forward. I will look forward to discussions with Liam Kerr and other members across the chamber. I caution the cabinet secretary against the attitude by being adopted by some commentators that views football supporters with disdain when only a small minority are responsible for those incidents. Does the cabinet secretary agree that tackling bigotry and hatred needs a wider, more considered discussion and should not be viewed solely through the lens of a football match? I agree that football clubs and authorities must do more, but does the cabinet secretary accept that any football-specific initiatives need consensus and widespread support and that rushed knee-jerk reactions are not the answer? What I would say to James Kelly is a few things. One, yes, we will do what we have been doing to tackle sectarianism wider in society, but let us please not have our head in the sand. Let us not ignore what has happened, not just in recent weeks, but I know that James Kelly is a football supporter. In fact, he and I support the same club, so he is a football supporter. He knows that that has been going on not for years but for decades. I would have thought that Mr Kelly might have come here with a little bit of humility to this chamber, somebody who was the poster boy for the repeal of the offensive behaviour football act. When a number of stakeholders told us that repealing that act would embolden the unacceptable conduct, we have absolutely seen that happen here today. What I would say to James Kelly is that he is right, we do not just need words, we need action. I noted his own comments when the act was repealed that he said that he would bring forward a plan fit for 2018. We have not seen that plan yet, but I will absolutely include James Kelly and others if they have constructive ideas, then please come to the chamber. There is a societal-wide issue here, but let us not ignore the fact that there is a problem in and around football with sectarianism, with unacceptable conduct, and we must tackle that, as well as tackling the wider issue. Question 2, Alexander Stewart. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the number of paramedics signed off work with depression or stress increased by more than 40 per cent last year. We value the tremendous work that our ambulance service staff do, often in exceptionally challenging conditions. Employee health and wellbeing is fundamental, which is why we have made clear that Scottish Ambulance Service must have robust policies in place to support mental health and wellbeing. The board has provided assurance that there are a number of programmes already under way across the service that provide dedicated stress, incident management and effective trauma support. Scottish Ambulance Service funding has increased to a record high, and paramedic staffing has increased by 19 per cent. We are committed to ensuring that the service has the resources that it needs to support staff and promote employee welfare. Alexander Stewart. I thank the minister for that response. With 151 paramedics taking time off sick with anxiety, stress or depression in 2018, which was a rise of 42.5 per cent over the previous year, does the minister not agree that those statistics are really shocking? I agree that the welfare of our staff is really important. Staff welfare is fundamental, which is why we have been clear about the fact that the ambulance service must have robust policies in place to manage employee health and wellbeing. We will continue to work with the service to support the delivery of effective health and wellbeing initiatives, including training, counselling and peer support. One example of that would be the anchor centre in Glasgow, which my colleague the minister for mental health visited just last week. Alexander Stewart. I thank the minister for that response. Staff in the ambulance service have suggested that there is a real reluctance by their employers to accept that staff suffer from post-traumatic stress, and they have reported that there is not much support available to them. Can the minister commit to doing all that he can to help the ambulance service to educate his staff to furnish them with the skills that are necessary to cope with it as a matter of urgency? I have just talked about the policies that we expect to be in place, but one of the points that I should make is that those figures that were released last December relate to the question that is being answered. Topical questions today relate to self-reporting. The idea that it has something to do with the management is self-reporting by the staff, and that is why the figures are as they are. David Stewart. The minister may be aware that I raised the issue of sickness levels in the ambulance service at the health and sport committee last week. The Scottish Ambulance Service has the third-highest level of sickness absence in all of Scotland's health board, and the levels of sickness have remained static year on year. Is the minister confident that the current approach of the ambulance service leadership is sufficient to support the workforce and reverse the trend? I think that it is important that we keep making sure that the ambulance service is providing the appropriate support to our staff, the same as everywhere else in our health service. One of the things, of course, is to make sure that we provide them with the correct resources, and that is why it is important that we have increased funding substantially to the service. In terms of paramedics, that has gone up by some 19 per cent, and we are committed to training 1,000 more paramedics over the course of this Parliament. That is a really important structure to make sure that we have the correct resources in place to support those staff. Thank you very much, and that concludes topical questions.