Current Petitions
Youth Football (PE1319)
I welcome everyone to the 14th meeting in 2010 of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received no apologies. I ask everyone to ensure that their various mobile phones and electronic devices are switched off, although if you have a pacemaker, you can keep it on.
Our first item is consideration of current petitions. The only petition under this heading, on which we will take oral evidence from Henry McLeish as chairman of the Scottish football review committee, is PE1319 by Scott Robertson and William Smith, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the legal status and appropriateness of professional Scottish Football Association clubs entering into contracts with children under 16 years; the audit process and accountability of all public funds distributed by the SFA to its member clubs; the social, educational and psychological effects and legality of SFA member clubs prohibiting such children from participating in extra-curricular activity; and the appropriateness of compensation payments between SFA member clubs for the transfer of young players under the age of 16 years. The petition also calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to increase the educational target for curricular physical activity from two to four hours per week and to develop a long-term plan to provide across all regions and for all ages quality artificial surfaces for training and playing football.
When the committee previously considered the petition on 29 June, it agreed to write again to the Scottish Amateur Football Association, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Child Law Centre, the KNVB, which is the royal Dutch football association, the City of Edinburgh Council, North Ayrshire Council and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills seeking outstanding responses to our earlier letter. Despite reminders, no responses have been received from the Scottish Amateur Football Association, the Scottish Child Law Centre and North Ayrshire Council, but the KNVB has responded—members have a copy of its response—and, on 31 August, the clerk received notification from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that the matters on which we wrote on 21 April are not within its responsibility. A letter was immediately sent to the Secretary of State for Education seeking a response. I understand that we have now received that response, which is included in the additional papers from the Department for Education.
The committee will wish to note that the petitioners have provided a series of questions to Mr McLeish, which has been set out in paper PE1319/M and forwarded by the clerk to Mr McLeish. I invite Mr McLeish to respond to each of the petitioners’ questions, after which members will ask questions. I believe that Iain Gray MSP, Kenny MacAskill MSP and Trish Godman MSP will also be present for that discussion.
I thank Henry McLeish for giving evidence today. I am sure that members will reflect carefully on everything that will be discussed.
Henry McLeish (Scottish Football Review Committee)
Thank you, convener. I know that I am greying, but I hope that your pacemaker remark was not specifically aimed at my good self.
First, I should make an apology. Because of how things are routed in SFA headquarters, your invitation to appear before the committee took six weeks to arrive, by which time I had missed the first round of evidence taking on the petition. I sincerely apologise for that, but I think that we have now caught up with things.
Secondly, I received the petition and the other representations that the committee received, but I am not sure that I received any specific questions. Could you clarify the position on that? I have some other stuff to say but, if you have a copy of the questions that you can give me, I will simply go through them.
The questions were sent out last week.
As I say, if anyone has a copy of them, I will be delighted to go through them.
I can give the questions to Mr McLeish.
Thank you very much, Robin. That is helpful.
I have to say that I did not get these questions. Anyway, I have them now.
Obviously, there has been a mix-up somewhere. Perhaps if you can speak to the paper that Mr Harper has passed to you, we can between us ensure that the questions are covered.
As the questions largely appear to reflect what is set out in the petition, I think—if it is okay with the committee—that I will go through the various elements in the petition. I am very happy to respond to other questions and discuss anything else that might arise.
The first point centres on the debate in the media and in your committee about, as the petition puts it,
“entering into contracts with children under 16 years”.
The area is complex and the terminology is quite important. There is a registration process for children under 16, but I do not think that the arrangement would in any sense be conceived of as being a contract between a club and a child under 16.
I realised early in my review of the grass-roots, recreation and youth development sides of the game that, although there were no serious problems, there were enough issues to justify including a paragraph and a recommendation on the subject in my report, which makes 53 recommendations. Recommendation 8 is:
“A ... review group should be set up to look in detail at a number of related issues facing children and young people in youth and talent development—the duty of care for children—their rights and proper protection; the role of families; the rights and responsibilities of the Professional Clubs; more transparency and proper oversight of the process; acknowledging there is a competitive market but with adequate safeguards and appropriate procedures.”
Our priority should be to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for children and young people. I said that that review group
“should also meet the need for a further and more in-depth look at the policies and procedures of regulating, compensating, nurturing, developing and financing children and young people in the youth development process, in particular the role of professional clubs and contact ages.”
There is more but, in essence, work is under way in the SFA. As recently as three or four weeks ago, I met the president, Mr George Peat, and reinforced the importance of the work, particularly in view of the representations to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Public Petitions Committee.
It has been accepted that, although the process works, it is not necessarily perfect. I have tried to hint that there are a number of issues that we should be looking at, to ensure that we have a recreation and grass-roots programme that involves young people and children and acknowledges that the rights of children are paramount—we have to make that absolutely clear, as we do in every aspect of society—while giving commensurate consideration to the rights of parents.
When parents and young children are involved in a programme, we find that they look on it as a beacon. Children often want to go on to become footballers. Although the parents must sign registration forms, I am not convinced that, when they do so, they always fully realise what might be involved. That is a key issue.
The review that the SFA will undertake will consider all the aspects that the committee has discussed and that I raised in my report. I like to think that we will build on the process and that we will be able to address genuine concerns that emerge. That involves not just the SFA but the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League. I am confident that, as part of the overall review, most of the issues will be addressed.
Thank you. I invite committee members to ask questions before I open the discussion to other members who are here.
Mr McLeish, a main concern is, as you said, to do with contracts with children who are under 16. You said that there is a registration process but that there are not contracts per se. You then said that, although in your view there were no serious issues with regard to that, there were some concerns. You were good enough to read out your report’s recommendation that there should be a review group to look at issues such as the duty of care, rights and responsibilities, adequate safeguards and appropriate procedures regarding children and young people. Who is on the review group? Is it merely the SFA? Is it an in-house review? If it is, how resilient and probing do you feel it will be?
14:15
That was one of more than 50 recommendations. The SFA is proceeding with a significant number of them, and the Government is looking at some of the recommendations, too. The matter was raised with the SFA president. At that point, he was due to get in touch with the SPL chairman, and the review would flow from that. The review group has not yet been established but, as far as I am concerned, the recommendation is being pursued.
You make a valid point. When we are looking at a complex area, it is important not to be complacent. My judgment is that the protocols and current arrangements were maybe drawn up in a different era. There is now an urgency and immediacy in dealing with children and their vulnerability in many aspects of life, which is why the review group will deal with the issue. The group is not yet composed but, as far as I am concerned, it is a matter of not thinking that what we are doing is in every way correct and seeking to build improvements.
I am grateful to Mr McLeish for that answer. Convener, when we are considering what to do next, we might be minded to write to the SFA to ask when the review group will be established and what its composition and remit will be. I think that that would be fair.
I have another couple of questions. Henry, you have just been given a series of questions from the petitioners, but I will concentrate on a couple of them if that is okay.
That is fine, but let me just give my apologies. I went through only item 1 in the petition—I will come back to the other items and I am delighted to take questions on the wider front.
Thank you for that.
I suppose that you have just about answered this question, but I want to get a definitive answer. Do you consider the current form of registration/contract to be a fair and balanced agreement between a young player and a professional club, or do you feel that it is concerning? It certainly concerns the petitioners.
I would respond by saying that there are a number of areas that concern me, so there are sufficient concerns to be discussed in the review group.
Registration is complex by itself because the SFA has certain powers, the SPL has certain powers and the parents sign a form that contains certain regulations that they sign up to. Although it is okay to say that the system is working well, there have been a few cases in which there have been some real issues and there is some anecdotal evidence of other concerns. The right and proper way to address your concerns—I do not know whether to call you Mr Butler MSP or Bill, so I will use Bill—
I accept most things, Henry.
I know that you do.
The main concern is that we do not take anything for granted. That is why the review has to be comprehensive, not only picking up what is anecdotal and opinion but seeking hard evidence to ensure that we have the best system of registration to deal with the issues. I think that we currently have scope for improvements.
Right—scope for improvement. I am grateful for that answer.
I have one last question. We have read some evidence, especially from the Commissioner for Children and Young People, which is very concerning. What is your view about the serious concerns that Mr Baillie has raised?
I have read some public comment from the commissioner. I come back to the point that these are complex issues. It is right that, as custodians of our culture and civic life in Scotland, both the Government and the Parliament are involved in these issues. I am keen to cut through what I talked about earlier and focus on the evidence.
The committee is right in the sense that we cannot have anything these days—whether it be football, rugby, culture or anything else in society—that does not have as its focus the welfare and wellbeing of the child or young person. To a large extent, the information that I have received so far is that there are very few serious issues in the system. However, that is not the same as saying that there are no issues in the system. I would, therefore, like to take a measured view of the children’s commissioner’s comments while agreeing with the thrust of your remarks. I think that it would be helpful if the committee, acknowledging that a review group is to be established on the basis of the report’s recommendation, asked to be sent information and kept more than a watchful eye on the matter. I hope that that would reinforce the point that, as I have said, this is a serious issue that needs urgent attention.
I am grateful for that.
Issues have been raised about pressing children into a seriously competitive atmosphere and developing their talents far too early. I would have thought that the same—if not even more—talent would be brought through if children were given more freedom to play. If we are looking for children who play with flair and imagination, much more football should be played just for fun and a little bit less should be played under the ethos of winning at any cost. Some of that ethos goes much too far down the junior leagues. It is distasteful to watch a professional foul being committed by an 11-year-old.
You have touched on an issue that stretches throughout the youth development process. At grass-roots level, there is a debate about how early a child should be exposed to competition. The Spanish team, winners of the world cup and the European championship, are coming to Hampden Park on Tuesday. Spanish children and young people love the ball and play with great flair and imagination. They pirouette, and it is like watching poetry when they play. We, in Scotland, are far from that. There is now a huge pressure on children to be able to play and enjoy the game virtually from nursery and primary school right through, and there is always a debate about the point at which they should start to be more competitive. To be fair, competition is introduced at not too early an age, but there is always an argument about when that should happen.
I accept Robin Harper’s point. There is a continuing debate about how we play football in Scotland and about how we can follow the way in which the Spanish, the Dutch, the French and the Portuguese play. Part of that rests on that point, and the review makes a number of recommendations in that respect. Linked to that is the idea that many children and young people can be developed and can enjoy the game at the local level, without going to any of the big clubs. They can be involved at the grass-roots, recreational level or become part of the elite pathway and process. It is a huge issue.
I do not think that we have got the balance right. Nevertheless, the matter is addressed in a number of recommendations in the report and must be reviewed.
I welcome your report, Mr McLeish. There was some general discussion about the issues that the petitioners raised when we last looked at the petition. The correspondence that the committee sent you via the SFA took six weeks to get to you. You have now informed the committee that your review has gone to the SFA and that you have spoken to the president. How confident should the committee be that the SFA can deal with this issue quickly, given that it has taken it six weeks to pass correspondence to you? You have told us that the president of the SFA will meet representatives of the other leagues to discuss the issue. When will we get a resolution? Given what you have said and given some of what has happened, I do not see us getting an early resolution. We have to try to resolve the matter as quickly as possible—and not only for the young people. The majority of committee members are quite concerned about the state of Scottish football and we want it to develop, but there are clearly still some restrictive practices, particularly in youth development.
I do not agree with very much of what you said. The sentiment is solid in that everyone wants Scottish football to be improved and, if there are any concerns about or serious problems with registration, we want them to be addressed. However, I want to put this into context. I was honest enough to give you the reason why a letter took six weeks to get to me, but I do not think that that is illustrative of anything else. It is important to note that, reading between the lines—or even just reading the lines—the response from the SFA suggested that it was more than willing to take this matter seriously.
We are talking about one of 53 recommendations. We very much welcome the fact that the Public Petitions Committee has taken evidence. There is some press comment to take on board and it is clear that other issues will arise. I believe that we need much firmer evidence on the basis of which to take action. That is why it is important to have a review so that we look at all the issues and come up with a plan to tackle some of these serious ones.
There is no dragging of feet here. At different stages, movement on the 53 recommendations is on track and I cannot believe that it will be any different with this one. To reassure John Wilson, it is important to say that I take a neutral position in dealing with football. That is why I am doing the review. I guarantee that this issue matters and that it will be taken forward as quickly as possible. One good reason for that is the involvement of the committee in keeping the pressure on the SFA.
Can you give us a timescale for resolving this issue? It is fine to carry out a review and it is fine for the SFA to say that it will take the issue forward, but the petitioners and the committee are looking for a timetable, so that we can say that we are working towards a resolution of these issues by such and such a date. That way, we can all move forward.
There is no indication of a date at this stage, partly because we are looking at a set of wider considerations, of which this issue is part. Without trying to be too difficult, I return to the point that we want to look at all the hard evidence that exists before we take matters forward. Given all the issues involved, there is a danger that we might get too transfixed on the terms of contracts, registration and compensation. My big concern is that we ensure that, in the process, a duty of care is being exercised so that nobody—whether an MSP, a member of the public, a parent or a child—is in any doubt that the duty of care issue is being developed to the maximum and taken as seriously as it can be. That is the issue on which the review will be focused. Issues to do with compensation and registration will be part of that, but a duty of care has to be exercised by somebody in the football world. That was my overriding objective when I suggested that a working group would be a good idea.
14:30
I am absolutely certain that you want to encourage the SFA and the Scottish Youth Football Association to work closely together to promote and improve the chances and opportunities that young people have to participate in football. I am encouraged that you want to get a feel for how people at the grass roots feel about the game. How have you engaged with youth football clubs in our communities or schools? How do people feel about the way in which things operate? What have you learned and what recommendations can you make as a result of that engagement?
The first part of the review, which was completed at the start of the summer, was built on the back of an extensive consultation exercise. That exercise included the two league bodies and the SFA as well as individual meetings with clubs and a range of meetings with affiliates. We covered the youth game, schools, amateurs, juniors and the women’s game. We also went out to different parts of Scotland to hear people’s views. I received an extraordinary number of constructive and positive e-mails from fans and spectators who had something to say. On the back of that, I looked in depth at what is happening in Holland and I went to Sporting Club Lisbon to see what it is doing.
Two important points emerged. One is that the condition of the game is pushing people towards change. We have a great opportunity for change—it is going to happen and it is happening. The second point is that everyone to whom I spoke felt that the youth game and the game at the grass roots and recreation level could be much more effective and better. A report has suggested that nearly 370,000 children, young people and adults play football in Scotland every year. Part of the recommendation is to take that up to half a million people. The growth will come mainly from girls, young women and adult women. I project a situation in which maybe one in 10 of the Scottish population plays football.
Everybody has a desire to get people involved at the grass roots and for recreation, for reasons of fitness, health and wellbeing and building confidence. However, I hope that some people will also aspire to grace Hampden Park or some of our great clubs. There is a national dimension, a local dimension and a children’s development dimension. There is a great outpouring of positive interest and a willingness to take the game forward.
We have touched on the idea of registration and the petition has the idea about a compensation payment. There are two other issues. One is about increasing the target for physical activity in the curriculum from two hours. The sad feature is that most children do not currently get two hours a week. If I was to be asked to give one single measure that could help sport—not only football—it would be to get every school and education authority in Scotland to take that seriously. Some schools and education authorities have done that and have excellent provision, but others cannot find two hours a week. That is at a time when obesity levels are rising and when the fitness, wellbeing, health and confidence of our children are paramount. One issue that is raised in the petition that I completely support is that far more must be done on that.
In some cases, we are not as good as schools in England and we fall way behind other countries in western Europe on sport in schools. England now wants to have five hours a week, although not necessarily as part of the curriculum. If we cannot get two hours a week within the curriculum, that isolates us. We are a sporting nation that talks a good game, but we cannot be proud of the fact that we cannot deliver two hours of physical activity a week in our schools.
My second point is one that people are concerned about. We fall badly behind most football nations in western Europe when it comes to facilities; our facilities are a national scandal. Although they are good in some areas, we have perhaps £0.5 billion of facility infrastructure to catch up on. We live in a time when neither Government nor the private sector can produce that; everybody is pushed and pressed. However, unless we can start to create that infrastructure over a 20-year period, we will find that we will not be doing enough physical education, health and sport studies in schools and we will not be doing enough to develop facilities. If we do not have those two foundations, we will not meet many of the objectives of the grass-roots youth development part of the game. We will simply carry on as we are, not gaining national success and continuing to turn out children who could be much fitter and better in their lives. I feel passionately about the matter and I am glad that the petition contains those two issues.
A couple of things bother me. When I went to see Neil Doncaster and then Peter Lowell, I was told that the contract had become a registration form. Then it changed from being a registration form to what is now called a commitment form. When we read the information that we have received from different people, we see that the name changes. It seems that nobody knows what the arrangement is from a legal position. Tam Baillie, who is Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People as you know, has addressed that to a certain extent in his submission. That is important because if the people at the top who are asking young people to sign that contract or form do not know what it is called, it is difficult to work out what it is when the young people are signing it.
The other thing that I am worried about is the so-called 28 days opt-out, about which Neil Doncaster told me. If a young boy who is signing up to a club is told verbally about the opt-out—there is nothing in the contract, registration or commitment form that says, “You have a 28-day opt-out”—28 days is not long enough for them to decide that they are not going to play football. That is just wrong and it does not appear to be written down anywhere. If the young boy is told about it verbally, I do not know how you would check that it had been said.
Another thing that bothers me is how we got to paying £3,000 a transfer. Has that figure been plucked out of the sky or is there a way of working out that a child is worth £3,000 after he has played for a year and is to be transferred somewhere else? I just do not understand that. It is a lot of money. We have heard about Kieran, whose second name I have forgotten, whose case was going to court, but at the last minute Hamilton Accies said that it would not go to court. I think that that was partly because of the so-called contract, which might not be legal in court.
Henry McLeish spoke about a review. My big worry is that it will be an internal review and I do not think that that should happen. At the very least, we must have Tam Baillie and others involved in the review. I accept that a lot of the evidence is anecdotal, but at the end of the day we are dealing with kids, some as young as 10, being signed up to so-called contracts or commitment forms or whatever they are calling it that week, and that is absolutely not right. I worry that we might not put the right people round the table to review the situation. It needs to be done soon and in public.
On the point about the £3,000, you would have to have a committee with Albert Einstein and a few others on it to grasp how the figure is arrived at. I will address the point seriously. The situation is a product of evolution rather than anything else. Just to make it even more complicated, the reimbursement of costs, which is the correct term, is not a payment that goes to the parents or youngster; it is to reimburse the cost of training and development when a youth player has been offered a further period of registration with another club.
There are four categories. I will not go into detail, because the subject is mind-bogglingly complicated and in some respects it might not make a lot of sense. If a player goes into the youth initiative at performance level, the costs can rack up from age 12 to age 17, ranging from £3,000 to £9,000. If a player goes in at initiative level, the sum involved falls to a few hundred pounds: between £200 and £500. There are another two categories into which players may fall depending on whether they are playing in the higher leagues. Those are historical, and they have evolved over time: the SPL recently dropped the age from 11 to 10, for example. There is not a lot of science behind it—the sums of money involved have just developed over time, and it is immensely complex.
The second matter is the opt-out. The interesting point is that there are contracts for players who are over 16, but no contracts for players below that age. You are right to say, “When is a contract not a contract? When it’s a registration.” I would like those issues to be clarified.
It is no use for people in the football world to tell the rest of us that they understand the concepts and that those are commonplace, when the heart of the matter is the wellbeing of children in the system. I would like that issue to be tackled. To make it even more complicated, for certain registrations a parent can just phone the SFA and it will cancel the contract overnight.
Like you, I am not a football expert, but the rest of the world is looking in and wants to be reassured that the terms that are used reflect something that has been well developed and that is entirely legal in the system. While the terms may conform with UEFA and FIFA regulations, we must be crystal clear that the duty of care for Scots children and young people is the best that we want it to be, on top of what has been laid down.
Trish Godman made a point about descriptions. I agree that terms have been bandied around, and one would need a glossary to explain parts of the relevant football authorities’ handbooks. That reinforces my central concern that although there has been some discussion and debate, some anecdote and, in some cases, hard evidence, all that must be brought together more professionally in the review that is taking place.
I have raised that issue with the president of the SFA on the back of the report’s recommendations, and it will proceed, but I believe that the authorities should be further notified of the issue so that they are in no doubt that the world is looking in and that the issues that Trish Godman and other committee members have raised today must be taken seriously. I cannot go any further at this point.
Trish Godman asked about the status of the SFA review group. Is that purely an internal review, or is there an opportunity for someone such as the children’s commissioner to be part of it?
It is currently an internal review. I have done the first part of the review and produced my report, and I am now doing the second part, which is about the league structures and the structure and governance of the SFA. I have come before the committee today to explain what I have done, and I can go back and convey to the SFA the discussion that has taken place. I would like to think that although the review will be handled internally, it will be informed and inspired by other contributions. That is the position as I understand it, but it may develop further.
When I spoke to Neil Doncaster he said that there is a 28-day opt-out, which is not very long. That caused mayhem when I came out and mentioned it, because some people did not know about it. All the parents were surprised. You have now said that parents can make a phone call, and I think, “Oops! You didn’t tell me that.” You said that a parent can pick up the phone and say that they do not want the child there any more. That seems to be introducing something else.
I am not a member of the committee, as you know. I would not be happy about an internal investigation; at the very least, Tam Baillie must be involved from the beginning, because the welfare of the child is at the heart of everything that he does. I understand that other people must be round the table, but they do not talk to each other: it took them six weeks to get a letter to you. They are not doing the job in the way that they should.
14:45
First, I do not think that what has happened already justifies your concerns, but those must be allayed as part of the process. Secondly, I said that the SFA can make certain registrations effective with a phone call. Part of the problem is that the system is immensely complicated. Everyone has the right to think that, somewhere along the line, something is not right. I am saying that all the points that have been made today must be part of the process. It is for the SFA and the SPL, not for me, to widen their review. However, the points that have been made will be passed on to them in official form, by the committee, and informally, by me.
I am conscious of the fact that a number of questions did not get to you. I would be grateful if you could reply to them in writing.
All of the issues that you have raised today and all of the questions are covered in the report, copies of which can be sent to every member. I am happy to provide any further information that the committee wants, but it would be of significant help for copies of the report, with appendices, to be sent to each member of the committee as a first step.
It would be helpful if you would provide specific replies to our questions, as I do not think that all of them are covered by the report.
Can we move to suggestions, convener?
Yes. You are slightly ahead of me.
I take my lead from the convener, as always. The petition is about improving youth football. It strikes me and, I think, colleagues that the system that is in place is not easy to understand and could be said to lack co-ordination. Many would claim that, in the end, it is ineffective. We could write to the SFA to say that we recognise from Mr McLeish’s evidence that it is setting up a review group and that we welcome that, because we think that in order to improve youth football the system must be simple, co-ordinated and effective. If that is the task and remit of the SFA review group, that is good and to the point.
We should ask the SFA to consider—we cannot instruct it—widening the membership of the review group, perhaps by including people who Trish Godman suggested such as Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Mr Tam Baillie. If that is not possible, it should at least widen the scope of the review so that evidence is taken in public from people such as Mr Baillie, the petitioners and others who have recorded an interest. That would be helpful. We do not want an internal review, because that would not be considered to be as productive as the review that people want.
I would like to record the disappointment that the petitioners expressed in their letter of 17 September this year about the failure of the Scottish Child Law Centre to reply. We should demand that it replies, especially in relation to the serious concerns that have been raised by Mr Tam Baillie, among others.
We should also suggest to the SFA that, in the review, it may wish to examine the current position and consider the introduction of a fairer system of registration and contractual obligations to allow players to give notice in the same way that clubs can. That very sensible suggestion comes from the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
The review group might also wish to look at the available facilities. Our briefing paper on this petition says:
“it may be that the issues raised by the petitioner in terms of facilities will be addressed by the Scottish Football Review Committee”.
I believe that those issues should be addressed and that we should write to the SFA in those terms.
Finally, it might be an idea to write to the Government, asking whether it has any plans to review the current youth football initiative and to investigate the drop-out rates and the impact on those who do not make it. After all, that is one of the petitioners’ major concerns. We might also ask the Government for its view on Mr McLeish’s comment, which is now on the record, that facilities are in need of improvement and if it agrees, whether it has any strategies to effect such improvements and what the timescale for such improvements might be.
I said that that was my final suggestion, convener, but perhaps we should also ask the SFA not only for the review group’s remit but for the timeframe for producing its report.
I suggest that as we are finding it difficult to get definitive advice about the surrounding legal framework, we contact Government lawyers on the matter. I also note that the Department for Education at Westminster has said that ministers are interested in reviewing the legislation on child performance and employment over the coming months, so we might want to keep in touch with the thinking that is going on down south in that respect.
Do members have any other suggestions?
On children and contracts, I guess that we will find in any standard textbook what the Government is likely to tell us. If we are going to get serious advice on such matters, we will need to use someone’s good offices to get copies of the actual agreements and contract forms. After all, it is only when we can look at the print that we will be able to decide what it really means.
I also wonder whether in all the letters that we write we can ask whether, in this case, it would be wiser to do less. We tend to believe that things are improved by doing more; however, it might well be—I stress that this is a purely hypothetical statement—that if we did not do anything at all until our youngsters were 13 we might get better footballers. I am not claiming any wisdom, but it has been argued that you can put systems in place too early in a child’s life. There are arguments across Europe about the age at which children should start school—
Don’t go there!
Maybe the same applies to football. Perhaps we just do too much.
I agree with Nigel Don’s final remarks.
With regard to the Scottish Child Law Centre, it might consider itself qualified to comment on children’s rights but, as it is not expert on contract law, it might well not want to say anything about the legal intricacies in that respect. If we want to know about that, we should look elsewhere, perhaps to the Government’s own advisers.
We can also take advice from the Parliament’s legal advisers on the best source of advice.
I take Robin Harper’s point but, given that the committee wrote to the Scottish Child Law Centre, it would have been nice to have received a reply from it saying that it was in such a difficulty. We simply do not know what its response is. As a committee of the Parliament of Scotland we should ask it as politely as possible “Reply—and do so now.” We should be unequivocal about that.
I get the message.
I thank Mr McLeish for attending the meeting. As you can see, members feel very strongly about the issue and are keen to pursue it.
Thank you for your courtesy. I guarantee that these matters will be reviewed. I realise that it is a bit tedious to read every page in each report that is published, but I hope that they cover most of the issues. In any case, this particular issue will be taken further.
Thank you very much, Mr McLeish. I also thank Trish Godman for attending.