New Petitions
Scottish Class Action Procedure (PE1234)
Item 3 is consideration of five new petitions. Members have copies of the petitions and all supporting information.
The first petition is PE1234, by Peter Brown, on behalf of Leith Links residents association, which calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate under Scots law a class action procedure, or similar, which would correspond with the legal systems of many other countries, including England and the United States.
The petitioner, Peter Brown, and Robert Kirkwood are present for the petition. Two members of the Scottish Parliament, Shirley-Anne Somerville and Malcolm Chisholm, are interested in the petition and are present to participate in the discussion. I invite Peter Brown or Robert Kirkwood to make an opening statement, after which we will have a question-and-answer session.
Peter Brown (Leith Links Residents Association):
Good afternoon. As the main petitioner, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the petition. I live in the Leith Links area of Edinburgh and am a member of the Leith Links residents association, which has provided a focal point for the needs of Leith Links residents over the past decade on a number of local issues. Having an increasing portfolio, the association's committee sought assistance from non-committee members, which is how I come to be here today as the main petitioner.
Our petition calls for the introduction of a class action procedure in Scots law, to bring it into line with many other legal systems worldwide, including those of England and the United States of Edinburgh—sorry, the United States of America. I am getting above myself. Our ground for this call is the accessibility of natural justice for the common person. Members will be familiar with the petition's content, so my statement will provide background on how the LLRA has concluded that a class action procedure offers the best solution to at least one of its tasks in hand.
The LLRA has not found the present democratic system to be particularly supportive of groups of residents like us, who have endured years of misery due to the poor infrastructure and mismanagement of Seafield sewage works. It therefore seemed worth our while to try to attack the problem from another direction, using the process of law.
The ex-sheriff, Ian Hamilton QC, has recently attempted to pursue legal action against the Royal Bank of Scotland through the small claims court. However, it has just been ruled that the complexity of the case requires that the action take place in a higher court. Mr Hamilton has subsequently dropped the case because he cannot afford the legal costs and has told journalists that his case could be dealt with efficiently only through a class action. The community of Leith around the Seafield sewage works has had to drop legal action against Scottish Water for similar reasons.
In 2001, the LLRA approached an Edinburgh law firm with a view to pursuing legal action against Scottish Water. We were advised that our case was strong and that the company's practice of creating clouds of foul-smelling hydrogen sulphide contravened Scottish legislation on nuisance and European legislation on the right of individuals to enjoy their communities' environment. However, we were further advised that the community could not be represented in a class action, that representation could not be offered on a no-win-no-fee basis, that only an individual or a small group of people could be represented and that the fees would be high.
A way forward was nevertheless suggested, which was that a member of our community who was on benefits could apply for legal aid and represent our concerns in court. We were told that if the outcome of the case was favourable, that would make it easier for pressure to be applied on behalf of others for Scottish Water to settle. A member of our community who is on benefits was subsequently chosen and an application for legal aid was made. However, it was turned down and, as happened with Ian Hamilton, the case was dropped.
What I have described, and the following, represent reasons why court procedure rules should be changed to allow class actions in Scotland. First, existing procedures do not provided sufficient or effective access to justice for a wide range of citizens. Secondly, existing legislation is effective in part, but could be considerably improved to promote better enforcement of citizens' rights, while protecting defendants from non-meritorious litigation. Thirdly, evidence exists that meritorious claims are not being pursued. Fourthly, effective collective actions promote market efficiency, and benefit individual citizens, business and society as a whole. Equally, such actions are effective mechanisms through which individual rights can be upheld.
I thank you for your attention and I commend the petition to you.
Thank you, Peter. I invite Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak, then Malcolm Chisholm.
I am here in support of the petition. As has been said, the petition is based on work on the Seafield stench, which has been a long-running saga in Leith. However, the chaos that is hitting the financial system at the moment brings home to us that the issue of class actions should be important to us all. The reasons for class actions not existing in Scots law are unclear. I do not believe that justice for all should be blocked because some claims may be frivolous. That could be said about a variety of things in the legal system, but it does not get away from the fact that natural justice should be part of the system.
There are a number of practical difficulties, but they have been overcome by other countries. This issue seems to be a great example of the legal establishment deciding that something is too much hassle for the legal establishment. Again, that is not a reason for ignoring the plight of the people in Leith.
The LLRA cannot find a solution to the issue in the current legal system. If a residents association that is as active as the LLRA cannot do so, I assume that nobody else can, which means that thousands of individuals are left without a voice. I urge the committee to explore this issue further so that we can assist places like Leith.
Would Malcolm Chisholm like to add anything?
I assume that Robert Kirkwood will also be called to speak.
Yes.
I would not want to supplant him; he has been campaigning on the issue for many years, as has Susan Deacon, who formerly represented the constituency that includes Seafield.
There is a specific local issue, but there is also a more general issue, which is perhaps what the Parliament will focus on primarily. It is unacceptable that consumers and others should be given rights that they cannot effectively enjoy, which is what happens in Scots law at the moment. I was not well informed about this matter in the past. It came up in previous sessions of Parliament, and a decision was made by the Court of Session Rules Council not to change the procedures.
I am disappointed that we should be listening only to the views of lawyers on this issue, but that was the view that was taken by the previous Administration. It is right that politicians should express a view on the matter because it seems to be incredible that Scots law has no procedure like the one that is proposed.
The proposal would make a great difference. As we know, many people simply cannot afford to take action, which is against the interests of justice. Consumer Focus Scotland put the matter well in its submission to the review that is being carried out by Lord Gill. It said:
"We believe that the introduction of a class actions procedure … would:
• increase access to justice
• provide an effective remedy, allowing people to exercise their legal rights
• save time and money, both for parties and the courts
• avoid inconsistent decisions in similar cases
• act as a deterrent to unlawful/unfair behaviour by businesses".
In general, there is a strong argument for the proposal.
Members will also understand the nature of the long-running saga of the Seafield sewage works. That case highlights how beneficial to local residents it would have been if the suggested course of action had been open to them.
I will invite questions from the committee members—Robert Kirkwood can come in on the back of them if he wants.
I am sympathetic to the petition and the petitioners' case. I take the points that were made by Shirley-Anne Somerville and Malcolm Chisholm about the benefits of a class action arrangement for the parties involved and for the courts.
Do the petitioners think that it would be appropriate to wait until Lord Gill has concluded his review before we do anything with their petition? I hope that the issue that we are discussing will be dealt with in the report. I am not suggesting that we wait forever—I think that that report is imminent.
Robert Kirkwood (Leith Links Residents Association):
We are aware of the review, and wanted to put down a marker, rather than start the process after Lord Gill has concluded his review, in case he was to decide that the course that we favour is not appropriate. The order in which the matter is dealt with is not important from our point of view.
It is the objective that is important.
Exactly.
We wanted to make it clear that although until now the arguments have involved legal people, the issue involves the interests of citizens. It should not be regarded as being simply a legal matter.
I think that since lawyers cannot make money out of selling houses any more, they appear to be gathering around this action and giving it a lot of support.
Since class actions have been possible in England, two communities south of the border have successfully pursued litigation against water treatment works—one at Mogden, in London, and another at Sandon Dock, in Liverpool, where six teams of lawyers are representing 3,500 people. As a result of the litigation in Liverpool, United Utilities, the water treatment company, has invested £100 million in upgrading the water treatment works. They were so persuaded by the case that was put that they realised that it was in their interests to produce a modern water treatment works. The same thing happened in Mogden where, under the threat of litigation, a major investment was made in the water treatment plant. Last week, I spoke to both sets of lawyers, who told me that the water companies are willing to settle rather than go through litigation, because of the strength of the argument.
That is in contrast to what has happened here. Only £20 million is being invested in Seafield. One of the reasons why a more expensive option was not chosen was the fear of a prolonged court case—Scottish Water made it clear to the council that it would appeal any decision that a more expensive option should be pursued.
Obviously, there have been positive outcomes in Liverpool and London. I hope that there will also, if things progress as most people wish, be positive outcomes north of the border, including in Leith.
Earlier, you outlined a case in which one of the poorest members of your community went to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for help in his attempt to seek redress against a public company for making his or her life a misery, but was denied legal aid. Were any reasons given for the denial of legal aid, or was it simply denied?
It was simply denied. There appear to be no reasons why; it simply seemed to be regarded as a case that was not worthy of legal aid. We were then left with a bill of £1,000 for an advocate's opinion plus the bill for the application for legal aid, which means that the cost of that little process came to more than £1,500—at least it would have, had we paid the advocate, but we refused to do so, because it became clear to us that he had not read the documents.
I find the position of SLAB to be pretty incomprehensible.
The paper that you helpfully provided us with from Consumer Focus Scotland points out that, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Lord Advocate may raise an action in the public interest but the procedure has never been used. I suppose that that sort of thing might not be terribly unusual in the world of the law. Have you explored that issue? Do you know why that power has never been used? It strikes me that some of the actions that we are talking about would have been in the public interest.
I have not investigated that, although I read the document to which you refer. I accepted the situation, because the act was passed a long time ago. That question is a good one, however.
If someone who is suffering cannot even get legal aid to help them address a problem, it suggests that that problem is not regarded as being serious enough for that kind of action. I do not know how you would go about persuading the legal profession that it was.
My position is that the office of the Lord Advocate is not quite the same as the legal profession, although I acknowledge the connections. The Lord Advocate ought to be perfectly capable of doing something in the public interest without having to worry what lawyers think about it. If the power has not been used, it has not been used.
On the public interest, we were surprised that environmental services had never served an odour abatement order on the Seafield sewage works in 40 years. The reason that was given was that it was not in the public interest to do so.
That is an interesting perspective on the public interest.
I notice that the papers that you have submitted suggest that the reason for the refusal to introduce a class action procedure might be that the Scottish Law Commission's report was considered by the legal profession, whose findings became law. It seems a bit unfair that the proposal for a class action procedure was turned down because the legal profession did not think that it was a good idea.
I have no legal or political background, but Leith Links residents association wanted help about a year ago, so I took the case on. I scratched the surface and found information. I got a bit of help from Lachlan Stuart—I forget which body he works for—who contacted the Court of Session Rules Council. The people he contacted said that everybody who had been involved in the decision had moved on and that they therefore did not know the details of why the council rejected the 1996 Law Commission recommendation that a class-action procedure should be introduced.
I had to dig in the information that came back to find anything of substance. I mentioned four points: as I said in the petition, they all seem to be superficial and none of them answers the question. However, each one screams at me that it was just the Rules Council saying that it was not convenient. Who are they? They are the legal profession. The rejection had nothing to do with justice.
It seems unfair that the legal profession should act as judge and jury in such a situation.
That is how it seemed to me.
There is broad sympathy for the petition among committee members, and a couple of other parliamentarians have expressed their support for it. The question is what we should do. I take on board what Robert Kirkwood said about waiting for the Gill review's conclusions. Although Lord Gill's report is imminent—I think it will be published in the spring this year—I suggest that we make Lord Gill aware of the petition and keep it open. After we see his report, we can revisit the issues that the petitioners have raised and deliberate on whether the report provides some of what the petitioners hope for. I am open to committee members' views about what we do next.
This is a situation in which, if the law is an ass, it has wandered off over the horizon leaving not a trace. We should write to the Scottish Government and ask ministers to consider introducing a class-action procedure as the petitioner requests after they have read the Gill report.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the petition. It is unfortunate that the Leith Links residents association cannot take a class action on the issue that it has raised, but it has raised Scottish society's need for a class-action procedure. Some of the concerns that it has expressed have been raised by other organisations over the past couple of decades.
I hope that Lord Gill's review will take the issue forward. Instead of just holding the petition until the review is completed, it might be worth our while to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to find out whether Lord Gill has indicated to the cabinet secretary whether class actions will form part of the review and, if not, what actions the cabinet secretary will take to ensure that class actions become part of the formal legal proceedings that can take place in Scotland. As the petitioners and the papers that are before us indicate, there is clearly a need for a class action procedure, not only for Leith Links residents association, but for other organisations in communities throughout Scotland that find it impossible to take legal action against public bodies because such action fails the public interest test. The issue is whether the public interest test as it is being applied is working in favour of the public interest.
Rather than hold off until after Lord Gill's review is before us, we should ask the cabinet secretary whether the review will contain issues relating to class actions. If it will not, we should, as I said, ask whether the cabinet secretary will look to introduce a class action procedure in Scotland.
I can provide clarification on one of John Wilson's points: the matter is being considered as part of the review.
The clerks sigh in relief. However, it will still be necessary for the committee to get that clarity for our records.
In response to Shirley-Anne Somerville's point, I acknowledge that class action forms part of the review, but it would be interesting to get an indication of whether Lord Gill is bringing forward proposals on class action. The discussion on class action was part of an on-going debate, hence we have a review. However, Lord Gill can review the matter but still come back with the recommendation that no action should be taken on it. I want to find out whether, if Lord Gill eventually says that no action should be taken, what action the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would propose to take in the light of the review.
I tend to agree with both the convener and John Wilson—I do not think that you are in disagreement. I think that we can keep the petition open and that we should write to the cabinet secretary because it would be helpful to get an initial indication of the Government's approach if Lord Gill were to come up with a specific proposal on class actions.
As Mr Kirkwood said, the committee should put a marker down on behalf of the petitioners, in relation to not only the petition but to previous instances when the ability to instigate a class action would have been appropriate, including in high-profile disasters such as Piper Alpha or consumer issues such as Hoover's reneging on free transatlantic flights—I hope that the convener did not accept Hoover's promise at the time. These are serious issues.
What's Hoover? I am too young.
You vacuumed up that question.
To get back to the point, convener, which you made me stray from, I think that John Wilson is correct and you are correct. The committee should put a marker down.
It might be useful in writing to the cabinet secretary to ask what actions, if any, Governments have taken as a result of the Scottish Law Commission class action report of 1996.
Do any members who spoke on the petition have any other points?
Are we allowed to contribute to the general discussion?
Yes.
Obviously, I am pleased that members are responding positively, not only by keeping the petition open but by writing to the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary would not say it, but I accept that the Government of which I was part perhaps did not handle the issue properly if it just contracted the issue out to lawyers. It is important that politicians take an active role in the decision. It seems obvious that we should listen to lawyers on the issue, but the final decision ought to be for politicians. It would be helpful if the committee could be as positive as possible about the content of the petition and send out the message that Parliament will take a strong interest in what happens.
Committee members have indicated that they wish to process the petition as effectively as possible. I note the recommendations that members have made. We should also bring the petition to the attention of Lord Gill—he should be made aware of it even though he is in the final stages of producing his report. The petitioners will be notified when the petition is brought back before the committee. Although they may not have an opportunity to speak to the committee directly, the elected members who have expressed an interest in the petition will be happy to come back at a future date. I hope that we will be able to make progress on the issues that the petition raises and that what I propose is to the petitioners' satisfaction.
St Andrew's Medal (PE1232)
The next petition for consideration is PE1232, from Alasdair Archibald Walker, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a national civic award, the St Andrew's medal, to recognise those who have performed extraordinary or outstanding acts of bravery. Christine Grahame MSP has expressed an interest in the petition and would like to speak to it. We will then deal with the issues that the petition raises.
I feel that I am a half-member of the committee today, as I hope to be able to speak to the next petition, too.
Anything that I say is not intended to diminish any existing honours or awards and those who have accepted them. We are not talking about the honours system, but about a civic award. A parallel or model might be the civic awards that are made by various local authorities, including some in England. The St Andrew's medal would be a Scottish civic award.
Without anticipating the committee, I hope that we can park any debates about what is and is not reserved. It is a bit like groundhog day, as I thought that the argument was dealt with at the members' business debate on the Lancastria, in which I pointed out that in 1999 I received a medal for doing nothing, apart from getting elected to the Parliament. The issue of whether medals can be awarded has been settled—what remains to be considered is the nomenclature of such medals.
Scotland is the only western nation not to have its own system of civic awards. This is an opportunity for the Parliament to have a clean slate because—notwithstanding what I said earlier—some parts of the United Kingdom honours system have been tarnished with allegations that people have bought their way to honours. I propose a system that rewards ordinary people for civic actions that are above and beyond what many of us would be prepared to do. For example, we in Scotland were unable to provide the people who helped to prevent the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport with any recognition on our part for what they had done for their fellow citizens. A smaller-scale example is that of three young men from Penicuik, in the area that I represent. Liam Dugan, Aaron Moore and Daniel Sturrock rushed to the aid of an ice cream man who had been shot. By their actions in applying first aid appropriately, they saved his life. Those young people received medals from the Priory of Scotland of the Order of St John, but we were not in a position to recognise what they had done.
The petition is fairly straightforward. A decade on from devolution, it seeks to have the Parliament grow up a bit and present civic awards for deeds that go beyond what we expect of people. It is up to ministers—and the committee in the first instance—to consider the idea and whether to establish a committee to examine how to implement something that is missing from our position as the Parliament in Scotland.
Do members have questions?
In fact, parliamentarians received not medals but medallions. The difference is important. A medal can be hung on the chest, but a medallion has no attachment for a ribbon and is stuck on the side of a decorative mug by those who want to keep it on their mantelpiece.
Robin Harper concedes that he is not the medallion man of the Parliament. Perhaps that should have been Tommy Sheridan.
Some people might think that the medallions should have been hung round our necks.
Do other members have questions?
Christine Grahame raises an important issue. Local authorities can award the freedom of a city to dignitaries and universities can award honorary degrees but, as Christine Grahame said, the Parliament is not allowed to give civic recognition to work or deeds by individuals. Does she see the award of the St Andrew's medal as similar to the award of the freedom of a city?
I thought that I dealt with what is not allowed and is outwith our powers. Making such an award would not be outwith our powers. If I may correct my position on our medallion, the Parliament awarded the Lancastria medal to survivors of that naval disaster to recognise an event—albeit 60 years afterwards—that the UK Government had failed to recognise. The people who received that award treasured it. It was not party political and it involved people who came from all over the UK and elsewhere.
The proposed medal might be for residents of Scotland or for people who do something civic in Scotland—I do not want to pre-empt any committee's investigation. The proposal is worth pursuing. It would do the Parliament no harm to be seen to be looking outside its bubble at the work that other people do and which goes unrecognised.
I speak with some hesitation and trepidation. I am not sure whether the proposal is ultra or intra vires. If it is ultra vires, it would still be useful to write to ask the Scottish Government to consider making representations to the Westminster Government on it.
We should try to take a balanced approach. I do not advocate the approach of my esteemed colleague, the Labour list member for the Lothians, in his rather extravagantly worded motion.
But it is direct.
It is very direct.
Christine Grahame mentioned civic awards, which we can make, but is the proposed medal meant to be for civilians, which would make it complementary to the George medal and the George cross? If so, I think—although I am not a constitutional lawyer, thankfully—that it would probably be ultra vires. However, I do not know.
The committee should consider writing to the Scottish Government to ask whether its legal advice is that the suggested award would be intra or ultra vires. Notwithstanding the Government's answer, we should also ask whether Scottish ministers have had dialogue with their Westminster colleagues about the suggestion or similar ideas.
I have no strong opinions on the issue either way, but I have a question for Christine Grahame. Are you concerned that there might be a hierarchy of awards if we introduced a medal?
The petition is not mine, but I thought that there would simply be a St Andrew's medal that would be awarded. The issue would be for a committee to decide. More than one medal might be awarded in a year. For instance, if we had had such an award in the year when the attack took place on Glasgow airport, three or four people might have been involved. There might be years in which nobody received the medal—its award would not be mandatory. The proposal is that we give Scotland the power to award such a medal. We would have a system whereby, in a given year, there would be an opportunity to present the medal in recognition of something that somebody had done. I do not envisage that we would have a system of first, second or third-class awards.
Sorry, my question was not clear. I meant a hierarchy involving the Scottish award and UK awards—brave and braver, so to speak.
The medal would be completely different. It would be more like freedom of the city or civic awards in towns, which are given to citizens. The award would be localised to Scotland. The person's action might have had international repercussions, but that is not the point. It could be a small thing, such as the young men in Penicuik did. As I explained, in that case recognition had to come from an outside body. Alternatively, the award might be given for something really big. The consideration would be about the quality of what was done in the circumstances, rather than the national import of the action.
Do you have a view about how the award would be decided? Would it be the Government, the Parliament or some other body that decided, or are you not sure?
I do not know. If the proposal was taken up, that would be an issue for consultation. We would look for people's nominations for the award—the ideas would not be from us. All kinds of systems might be put in place. That should be open and free flowing. However, we should establish the principle that there should be a St Andrew's award for deeds of civic valour in Scotland. That is pretty much the suggestion. The mechanisms would be a matter for others to decide on.
On the principle that it is good to have as many ways of rewarding people for good deeds and performing civic duties as we can possibly invent, I am certainly not against Bill Butler's proposal that we refer the petition to the Government for an opinion. The award could be a good thing.
Convener, may I say in conclusion, on a light-hearted note—
I have a funny feeling that I cannot stop you.
I was just going to say that I understand that the petition would be referred to my colleague Alex Neil. His wife asked me to say that if the award goes ahead, she wants to be the first nominee, because she has been married to him for 30 years. I said that I would put that on the record.
That is without remission, I believe.
A medal for active suffering for Mrs Neil. When I think about it, we should probably have one minted for us, too.
We should write to the Government to get clarity on its views. Obviously, the Scottish Government will have a dialogue with the UK Government on the broader honours system, irrespective of what some of us might feel about its value over the years. Government has introduced similar measures. For example, Edwin Morgan was appointed the Scots makar in recognition of his role. The former Executive and the present Government have considered recognising key contributors to Scottish arts and literature. There are issues on which we can have broad discussions. I welcome the recommendations from members that we raise the issue directly with the Scottish Government to find out what dialogue has taken place. Perhaps we can find something that would benefit the present honours system and which recognises that we have had a Scottish Parliament since 1999. To be fair, I should mention the other devolved assemblies, which reflect the diversity of the UK. Do members agree to the recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Great Britain Football Team (PE1233)
PE1233, by Craig Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider what impact the creation of a Great Britain football team at the Olympics or other sporting event would have on the promotion and support that it and other public bodies such as sportscotland provide for football as a means of encouraging a healthy lifestyle, as well as generating economic and social benefits.
Again, Christine Grahame has expressed an interest. I will allow her to speak to the petition—I am being very generous this afternoon—before we go on to the question session.
Convener, I apologise for the double whammy. As members can see, I am not Craig Brown, but I know that members want me here in his stead.
This is quite a serious issue. From press reports at the weekend, it is clear that there is a great divide on the issue between, on the one side, FIFA and the Scottish Football Association and, on the other side, Westminster politicians. It has been clearly stated—Sepp Blatter has now changed his tune on this—that a GB team in the Olympics
"would mean the end of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football".
I notice that no mention is made of English football, but there we go. No clearer statement than that could be made. Sepp Blatter has moved his position. Originally, he tended towards the view that the GB team would be a one-off so the decision would not be binding. However, it is absolutely apparent that that is not the case.
With the convener's leave, I quote from the FIFA honorary vice-president, David Will. His letter states:
"People seem to have forgotten that at almost all of the FIFA Congresses throughout the 1980s, delegates, mostly from Africa supported by the Caribbean, raised objections to the existence of the four Associations and urged that they be combined into a single Great Britain Association. Also, of course, they objected to the right of the four Associations to have a FIFA Vice-President, the position which I held until I retired last year. Happily, these proposals were never accepted."
There is a history to the issue. The letter continues:
"I am sure that President Sepp Blatter and Secretary General Jerome Valcke, are being quite honest when they say that in their opinion a one-off combined team would not jeopardise the existence of the four Associations"—
of course, Sepp Blatter has since changed his mind about that—
"but unfortunately it is not within their power to guarantee this. Such a decision could be taken only by the 208 members of FIFA at Congress."
The thing is that Sepp Blatter's decision cannot bind his successors. David Wills continues:
"I am also not convinced that we could depend on a unanimous vote in our favour in such circumstances even from all of the European Associations, many of which have their own agendas."
Clearly, the decision would open up a can of worms.
I want to nail another suggestion, which I think has been made by the Conservatives. The letter from David Wills also points out:
"Finally, the suggestion made by some politicians that the four Associations should play a round-robin tournament, the winner to represent GB at the Olympics is, if anything, even more dangerous. For the four Associations to be obliged to do this also for the World Cup would be the perfect compromise solution for many of the FIFA world-wide Associations, who might not wish to attack the existence of the four Associations, but may still be jealous of our right to have four entries into the World Cup qualifying tournaments."
Clearly, there would be unintended consequences if we were to proceed with a GB team.
That is the back-cloth to the issue, but Westminster politicians are not hearing that. In a recent exchange with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, Pete Wishart put the following point:
"I am sure that the Secretary of State saw the remarks of FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, over the weekend. He supported the view of the Scottish Football Association, the tartan army, and the overwhelming majority of Scotland fans that a ‘team GB' would threaten the independence of the Scottish football team."
Pete Wishart pointed out that FIFA's assurances are very fragile. The secretary of state replied:
"I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Late last year, the FIFA executive passed a resolution specifically saying that the independent status of the four Football Associations would not be affected by the fielding of a British team at the London 2012 Olympics. … the British Olympic Association wants to put forward a British football team, and it should be the strongest team that we could possibly field. No sanctions should be applied against any young person who wants to accept the call-up to that team and represent their country in their home-soil Olympics. To deny young people that opportunity would, I think, be a crying shame."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 2 March 2009; Vol 488, c 566-7.]
That would be fine and well if having a team GB would not threaten the independent status of the other nations, but that is simply not the case. It is becoming clearer and clearer as we get into the legalities of the contracts that the legal position is that the assurances that were given would not be binding. Everyone is now aware of that.
Were a team GB to proceed, notwithstanding the ramifications for the other nation states playing, imagine what would happen at league level and all the other levels at which people play. I am considering the matter as a member of the Health and Sport Committee. Scotland is generally accepted, I think, as the founder nation of football. People are football mad in Scotland. Children play it. What impact would there be on interest in the game?
This is a serious matter. The First Minister has made his position clear, but we have to make the matter clear to Westminster. Whatever our politics, it is crystal clear that if we were to have a team GB at the UK Olympics, we can say goodbye to a Scotland team playing internationally. It would open a can of worms or Pandora's box—whatever metaphor we like—in that it would allow many nations that have wished to undermine the present position for many years a golden opportunity to do so.
Everything that Christine Grahame has said is very interesting and thought provoking. That is normally the case. However, I am not sure that the member has addressed the actual content of the petition. It asks the Scottish Government to take measures
"to consider what impact the creation of a Great Britain football team … would have on the promotion and support … for football as a means of encouraging healthy lifestyle as well as generating economic and social benefits".
We can extrapolate from that, and we can then go into the interesting debate that Christine Grahame has initiated. If we are going into that interesting debate, I might as well nail my colours to the mast. I agree with the SFA. I do not want, and do not see the need for, a GB football team. The round-robin tournament could set a very unhappy precedent with unintended consequences.
It is a strong argument that one FIFA executive, like one Parliament, cannot bind another FIFA executive in the future. I do not know whether the situation that we would all wish not to arrive at—in other words, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland not being able to participate as separate entities in European and world tournaments—would actually come to pass, but I really do not think that we should take that chance.
As a very young child, I enjoyed going to see Denis Law and Jim Baxter and others getting the usual draw against West Germany and not qualifying for the world cup in the 1960s. I like having a team to support on the international stage. As Partick Thistle are not realistically going to achieve that in club football for some time—
They might any second, though.
I would come down on the side of the SFA. I do not see the need for a GB team in this case. I support the idea of a GB team for the Olympics, but not for football.
The situation can more or less be summed up in one line. My understanding is that football is our national sport. I am sorry, but Great Britain is not a nation; we are four nations. To suggest that we have a Great Britain football team is to miss the point.
I agree with everything that Christine Grahame and Nigel Don have said. It would be unconscionable to have a GB football team. It does not make sense, whether for the Olympics or for any other purpose.
I support what other members have said. The difficulty with the argument that a GB football team should enter the Olympics is that it has ramifications for the future not only in relation to FIFA and UEFA—the Union of European Football Associations—and the teams at national level, but also potentially at league level. Because of the way in which the structures were set up, we might find that some of our larger clubs in Scotland were classified along with other clubs from south of the border, Northern Ireland and Wales in relation to other competitions. That could have a disastrous economic impact not only for our clubs, but for the Scottish nation.
There has been—and there continues to be—speculation about some of our larger football clubs joining the English leagues. If FIFA and UEFA took the position that Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England were to be classified not as four individual football nations but as a single GB nation, that would have a serious impact to the detriment of football in all four nations.
We should ask the Government to give us a clear view on what it thinks the impact would be if the proposal was implemented. Would it mean, as Christine Grahame suggested, that the smaller nations in FIFA would argue that, because the four home countries are not independent nations and are not recognised as independent nations under the Olympic banner, they should not be recognised as such in international football?
As I said, the proposal could have implications not only for international football but for national football.
I forgot to mention that it is estimated that football makes a net contribution of £174 million a year to the Scottish economy. Apart from its importance with regard to healthy living—I say to Bill Butler that I think I mentioned that en passant—we must also remember that it is a business. The proposal would have an economic impact at a time when we do not want any further deleterious impacts on the Scottish economy.
I thank members for their helpful suggestions. In a sense, the petition makes assumptions about certain things that we need to address. The problem is that, in the comments that have been made during the past year or so, we have heard different perspectives from different organisations on what the issues are. It strikes me that it would be useful for the committee to write directly to FIFA and the other governing bodies to get their positions firmly on the record. At the moment, we are just hearing what Sepp Blatter said to so-and-so a year ago, what might have been said to George Peat, and what George Peat understands was said to him—and that is always a complex question when you know George Peat. Given the nature of the debate, that is understandable, but it would be useful to get specific answers on the positions of the various bodies.
The second point in the petition concerns whether there would be a material impact on the future of Scottish football. I think that the petition acknowledges that the issues are to do with many other factors and not just the idea of a GB team.
With respect, I clarify that the quotations that I read from—
I thought that I was chairing the meeting, Christine.
I beg your pardon.
I am trying to be helpful.
We need to get things on the record. The problem around the debate has been that we all have our personal views on whether the proposal is a good thing or a bad thing, and about whether it is a relevant thing. We need to get that nailed down, so it strikes me that we want to get answers to those questions.
Members have made positive suggestions about how we can try to move the issue forward. One member raised a concern about the second half of the petition, which is dependent on what we know is a firm position. I know that it is complicated, but we need to get to the heart of the matter and find out the positions of FIFA and the other bodies. I am fed up with hearing what different FIFA spokespeople are saying. We need to get its position nailed down so that the committee can make a decision on the petition.
I hope that that is helpful. Perhaps there will be other helpful suggestions.
I support the suggestion that we write to FIFA, but it is also important to try to get assurances from it that the response that we receive can be binding for a period of time to come. Christine Grahame and others have pointed out that FIFA could say that no danger exists and that there would be no impact on the four nations competing in world football, but who is to say what will happen in the future? The world governing body could come together and somebody could put forward a motion that would dispose of the four teams' ability to compete in FIFA or any other international competitions, given that the four teams had competed collectively in the Olympics. I support the convener's suggestion, but can we get assurances from FIFA that there will be no impact in the foreseeable future on the four nations' ability to compete in international football?
I agree with the convener and John Wilson. We should write to FIFA and ask it for a definitive response. Whether it can give such a response is another matter, but we should make the try and ask the question. We can see what its response contains and decide whether we want to pursue the matter. That is where we are. Doing anything else would be inappropriate.
I am sorry for being restless, convener, but I want to clarify for the committee that I directly quoted FIFA's honorary vice-president, David Will. Those quotations were not hearsay. The committee may wish to write to him on the matter.
For clarification, the issue is not David Will's contribution; it is the reports of other conversations, including those in which UK Government ministers and the Scottish Football Association have been involved. Those of us who have been involved with football authorities over the years know that it is always useful to get down accurately on paper what they think.
Issues have been raised that we need to get addressed. I will add to what John Wilson said. We will summarise the continuing concerns and issues that need to be resolved or addressed before we can go any further forward. I hope that that is a constructive approach. I have had the privilege of being in the Scottish Parliament football team in the parliamentary shield competitions and of winning that shield three times in a row, against Northern Ireland, Wales and Westminster teams. That was a great honour, and we would not want to deny such honours to other boys or girls out there in the future. I never thought that I would get that in the Official Report, but I can now rest happy.
You are suitably modest, convener.
I made a minor contribution to those tremendous successes.
We are concerned about the issues that have been raised and we want to address them, which I hope we can do through the process.
Thank you.
Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Appointment of Teachers) (PE1235)
PE1235, by Darren Burnside, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to remove the entitlement of a church or denominational body to approve the religious belief and character of prospective teachers so that any teacher, regardless of their religious belief, can teach in any school. Do members have any suggestions for how to deal with the petition? Some additional background information has been provided. Marlyn Glen is a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which has also considered the issue. Perhaps she can amplify what that committee has done. How can we progress the issue?
The Equal Opportunities Committee considered the issue quite recently and has done some of the work that the Public Petitions Committee might have wanted to do. It would be useful for this committee to see the replies to the letters that we have written. The issue was raised after the McNab ruling. The Equal Opportunities Committee wrote to the Educational Institute of Scotland, which has replied. We also questioned the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and the UK Solicitor General, Vera Baird, who was here talking about the proposed UK equality bill. We have been considering this issue from an equalities point of view.
I have no problem at all continuing with the petition and asking the Scottish Government whether it intends to amend section 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. We could also ask the Government about guidelines for education authorities—although a letter has been received from the minister, Fergus Ewing, saying that such matters are up to local authorities.
I just wanted to give members of this committee some background information on the issue.
Does Marlyn Glen think that it would be suitable for the committee to write to local authorities individually—perhaps to a selection of them—to ask them how they approach this problem?
Possibly. It is up to individual local authorities how they do things. However, the committee's papers show clearly that teachers in denominational schools have to be approved by the church. It is up to local authorities how they go about that.
This question goes to the heart of employment legislation, as was clearly shown by the McNab case against Glasgow City Council, which was fought out at an employment tribunal. That case came before a tribunal because of the recent change in the legislation on religious discrimination.
I hear what Marlyn Glen says about the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but the petition has come to this committee and we should do some work on the issue as well. The Scottish Government and the previous Scottish Executive have argued that it is up to local authorities how they deal with the appointment of teachers in the education service. However, there should be equality throughout Scotland in appointments to the education service. There is certainly an issue to examine in how we marry antidiscrimination law with what has been a tradition in the employment of teachers in education authorities. It would be useful for us to seek the views of a number of bodies on the best way of tackling what may be perceived as discriminatory practice in some local authorities. The approach throughout Scotland should be uniform. It may that regulation is required from the Scottish Government, or some other body, to ensure fairness and equality in the appointments process throughout the education service.
We should also consider writing to the Scottish Catholic Education Service, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Educational Institute of Scotland, to ask whether revised guidance or amendments to legislation are required. It would be interesting to hear their views.
The Scottish Government must be asked whether it intends to consider amendments to the 1980 act, which would have to be done at the level of primary legislation if significant changes were intended. We should also ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to revise the guidance given to education authorities. Those are the central questions that must be asked and we have to get the Government's answers to those questions and the views of the organisations to which I referred before we can even think about what we will do with the petition.
We can pull those things together and when we get the information in we will determine the next course of action.
I thank Marlyn Glen for bringing the information from the Equal Opportunities Committee to our attention. We need to explore the issue in more detail to try to shed light on how the legislation has been interpreted and the implications of the court case. We will take those recommendations forward: we will continue the petition and make inquiries with a variety of organisations.
Specific Learning Difficulties<br />(Assessment of Children) (PE1237)
PE1237, by David Ballantine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standardised assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of eight to inform parents, pupils and educators whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty. Are there any questions or comments on the petition?
I suppose that we could ask the Scottish Government whether, in its view, legislation as requested by the petitioner is required and, if not, why not.
It might be helpful to ask the Government to outline the existing provisions, to reassure the petitioner that schoolchildren are catered for. From my background as a support for learning teacher, I am not convinced that a standardised assessment across the board at the age of eight would achieve the results that the petitioner seeks.
It would be good to have the current provisions laid out so that we can see them. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill is being discussed in Parliament this week, but I do not believe that anything like the provision that the petition calls for is in it. It would be interesting to bring the information on all the provisions together to see whether they meet the petitioner's needs.
My only other observation, as someone who has a background in education, is that eight is quite a bit into the education process. I would expect there to be on-going assessment in the early years—pre-five and in the early part of infant school. I would like to get clarification from educators and the bodies with responsibility for those matters on the intervention strategies to address the issue.
The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill is up for further debate this week and there will be some criteria in respect of that legislation. We must get clarity from those involved in the process about how best to intervene. The petitioner's intention is laudable, but the issue is how best to deliver it. I am not convinced that a statutory legislative framework that says that there will be standardised testing at the age of eight is the most appropriate tool, but we must find out whether other mechanisms are in place to deliver the appropriate assessments, so that we do not face such difficulties.
I have a feeling that what lies behind the petitioner's concern is that some young people are not diagnosed with various problems that they have with learning until a fairly late stage. However, an across-the-board set of diagnostic tests at age eight might not be any better than the current systems that are in place to identify children who have problems and give them the appropriate tests to ascertain which problems that affect their learning should be addressed. Everybody sympathises with the petitioner's intent, but we need to find out from the Government whether its view is that the diagnostic elements that the petition wants us to address are better addressed in other ways.
When we write to the Government, it might be useful also to write to the EIS to find out whether any issues have been identified by teachers on the front line. As Robin Harper indicated, many teachers are not aware of some of the symptoms that may develop in children who have additional support needs. It would be useful to find out whether the EIS has done any work on the issue, particularly in primary schools.
We could also perhaps write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to find out whether it has identified, through its education committee, how the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill may impact on local authorities. Although the Parliament can pass the bill, it will be up to local authorities to implement it. From my own experience, I know that local authorities throughout Scotland have different ways of dealing with supported needs and the assessment of supported needs, so it might be useful to ascertain whether COSLA can indicate how local authorities are dealing with the issue and what implications there may be once the bill is passed.
We will take forward those recommendations from committee members, keep the petition open and explore the options.
We will have a brief comfort break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—