Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Official Report 473KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)

The first current petition is PE1124, in the name of Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports. The petition seeks a ban on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 5, and a written submission. I invite contributions from members.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government. When the legislation went through the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government said that it would keep under review any findings of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report. Clearly, the petitioner has identified some issues, so I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government what it intends to do in relation to the findings of the report and the issues that it highlights.

I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as it is the main body that looks after animal welfare in Scotland, to ask its views on the DEFRA report.

It is useful to look at the analysis from England and Wales. As members know, we have been pursuing that for some time, so I was glad that the under-secretary got back to us with the full details.

Do members agree to the steps suggested by John Wilson?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Youth Football (PE1319)

The next petition is PE1319, in the name of William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 6, and written submissions. I invite contributions from members.

This petition has been good. I do not know how the rest of the committee feels, but part of me thinks that we should continue the petition and another part of me thinks that we have done a lot of work on it. In particular, we have received the submission from the Scottish Football Association, which states:

“The next step is for all our Affiliated National Associations to embrace One National Plan.”

We have looked at that.

I am still concerned about certain actions regarding contracts, so I am not entirely convinced that I want to close the petition. I tend more towards continuing the petition and, because we are looking at the accountability of public funds, perhaps writing to the SFA with questions. I am open to other members suggesting other ideas that they have.

It is difficult, because we have done a lot of work on the petition and received many responses. I am pleased that the SFA is picking up on the petition and I know that our convener is particularly interested in it.

Sandra White makes a fair point.

I am still not totally satisfied with regard to contracts. I know that the issue has a long track record of being scrutinised in the previous session and that there are European convention on human rights issues to take into account. The SFA’s letter is certainly useful. This is all about striking a balance with football clubs’ right to realise an asset. I also understand the point about the investment that is made in training—indeed, Falkirk FC makes some very good comments in that respect—and all of us, whether or not we are football fans, need to acknowledge that factor.

Nevertheless, we need to consider the other side of the coin. The fact that young players are signing what is in effect a form of contract raises real issues with regard to compensation and so on. We must find the right balance and I suggest that we do a bit more work on the contract issue.

No one has said as much, but I picked up from the work that was done in the previous session a sense that people were asking, “Why is the committee getting involved with football?” I do not need to preach to members about this but, given that the SFA and football receive substantial public funding, there is an accountability element that we have a genuine responsibility to pursue. We need to mount a fairly strong defence of that point in our next steps.

I suggest, then, that we pursue Sandra White’s point about returns on moneys invested by the SFA as well as the issue of the contracts that young people are signing. I know that parents are involved in that, but we still need to take a clear look at the matter.

I absolutely agree with you, particularly on your last point. The letter from the parent, Mr Gibbons, is quite telling, and I have to wonder about the difference between it and the reality of how some of these young people are being treated. I certainly think that we should pursue the matter.

We should continue the petition, although it sometimes feels as if it is not moving very quickly towards any conclusion.

Speaking as someone who has been involved in youth football, I wonder whether there is any need for players to be signed to some form of contract for it to be proven that they have been a part of the club’s youth system when they get transferred and the compensation element kicks in. Perhaps there should be some behind-the-scenes review of the compensation that is paid to clubs. After all, many clubs, including Falkirk FC, rely on developing young players to a stage at which other clubs sign them and on the compensation that is then paid out.

I certainly think that we should continue with the petition in the terms that have been suggested, but for me the fundamental question is: if Gothenburg in Sweden can have players on its books until they are 16 without requiring them to sign a contract, why do young players in Scotland need to do so?

It would be useful, as part of our next steps, to share the Gothenburg experience with the SFA and ask for its views.

I know that the SFA has had a fact-finding trip, because Dyce Boys Club, which I used to coach, formed part of a delegation to—I think—Gothenburg. The SFA should have that information, but we should certainly ask what it is doing with what it gleaned.

Indeed. I was merely proposing a more practical step because it can be difficult for the clerks to interpret our suggestions.

I want to reiterate what the convener has already said. A great deal of investment is being made in sports clubs, particularly youth football initiatives, through cashback for communities and sportscotland funding. I have reservations about the costs that some of the clubs have cited for training young people and developing their football skills. We need to get some measure of what clubs are receiving from various Government initiatives and the real costs of developing training programmes for young people.

The fundamental issue, which relates to contractual legislation for people under 16, has not yet been fully addressed. Falkirk FC is to be commended for giving us the fees structure. When we are looking at £3,000 for a transfer, that puts young people on the market and could be seen as the club benefiting directly from the development of young people in football.

Another issue that the committee has looked at in the past, apart from the transfer fees, is that of young people not being able to play for youth clubs or schools because they are signed up to the contracts. The question is whether that issue has been fully addressed in the responses that we are considering today.

The clerk advises me that that issue has been addressed by the SFA, as there were quite a few complaints about that.

Are members happy that we keep the petition open in the light of the comments that were made earlier? We will try to get a comment back from the SFA about the Gothenburg experience, and we will ask about the issues of the contracts and the use of public funds. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)

The third current petition for consideration is PE1351, in the names of Chris Daly and Helen Holland, on a time for all to be heard forum. Members have before them a note by the clerk—it is paper 7—and submissions. I invite contributions from members.

The note from the clerk makes it clear that a lot of different strands of work are in progress, and it would be premature for us to take any specific action until those are concluded. I wonder whether we should return to the petition at some point before the summer recess.

What are the views of other members? Do we agree with Mark McDonald’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. It is agreed that we will keep the petition open and we will consider the matter again in June.

---

Staffordshire Bull Terriers (PE1396)

The fourth current petition is PE1396, in the name of Ian Robb, on behalf of Help for Abandoned Animals (Arbroath), on the overbreeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers. Members have a note by the clerk—it is paper 8—and submissions. I invite comments from members.

This is an important petition for this particular breed of dog, but perhaps for other dogs as well. We know that the Government thinks that COSLA would be the appropriate body to address the issues that are raised in the petition because the breeding is happening across local authority areas. I agree with that. However, we need to get a lead from the Government. Perhaps the Government would be willing to get in touch with COSLA directly to set up a working group to discuss all the issues that the petition raises—particularly the overbreeding of the dogs, which is spoiling the breed, and their abandonment. I would like us to proceed in that way.

I agree. I am pleased that we will be looking not just at Staffordshire bull terriers, although the petitioner has come forward on the issue of Staffordshire bull terriers and there is undoubtedly an issue with overbreeding. Greyhounds and whippets are also among the top breeds of dog to be abandoned or neglected. In looking at more than just Staffordshire bull terriers, we can get a more strategic picture of what is happening out there.

The last time that the matter was raised, I talked about dog-breeding licences. I understand that a dog-breeding licence is simply that—it does not relate to any particular breed, so it does not provide a way of keeping track of how many dogs of a particular breed are being bred. If everybody with a dog-breeding licence chooses to breed Staffordshire bull terriers, greyhounds or Jack Russells, there will be an overbreeding issue. Maybe the application of the dog-breeding licence needs to be reconsidered. The working group could look at that. I agree that the Scottish Government should ask COSLA to take that work forward and look at the issues in a bit more detail.

15:30

I wonder whether we should raise the issue with the Kennel Club, too. I had a positive meeting with representatives from the Kennel Club when I was down in London shortly before the Easter recess. There is also the issue of designer dog breeding. Pets are being advertised in the press from the mingling of different breeds, which is being done with bad intent by certain people. For example, Staffordshire bull terries are being mixed with other dogs to produce dogs that look as if they are of the banned breeds. That is not doing breeds such as the Staffordshire bull terrier any good at all. Could we get some expert opinion from the Kennel Club?

I return to Mark McDonald’s point first. The point is valid, but we must look carefully at what the petition says and it concentrates on unlicensed breeders; that is one of its key points. Nanette Milne’s point is also valid, but I am anxious to keep to the terms of the petition and what the petitioner actually wants. All the issues that have been raised are very valid, but I think that they go beyond the remit of the petition.

Sure; I am happy to row back my ambitions, convener. The wider issue needs to be looked at, but I might pursue that in a different way.

Yes. However, notwithstanding my comments, it is still important to continue with the petition, particularly in light of Nanette Milne’s earlier comments. Are we agreed that we will continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Access to Insulin Pump Therapy (PE1404)

The fifth current petition for consideration is in the name of Stephen Fyfe, on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, on access to insulin pump therapy. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions. For the record, members should note that Nanette Milne and I are co-conveners of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on diabetes and obviously have interests and, perhaps, expertise, but that will be a judgment that other members will have to make.

My view on the insulin pump issue has changed a lot. The Scottish Government is trying quite hard to raise the bar, particularly through the new money that it has given for insulin pumps. I hope that saying this does not ruin my political career, but the Government has tried hard to get individual health boards to raise their game. I know that it is a cliché, but I cannot think of a better way of saying that a whole postcode lottery exists around the issue. Why does someone in Glasgow who meets certain criteria not get an insulin pump when they would get one if they were in another area?

I am sure that Glasgow has its own view on that, but I am concerned about low-performing authorities. We had a big chat about targets earlier, and I think that the targets in this regard are quite good. Health boards can have 5 per cent of people with type 1 diabetes on insulin pumps, while in other boards that figure is only 0.6 per cent. That is a serious issue. My view is that there is an issue around management control between the Scottish Government and individual health boards that are opting out of the target. That is just not good enough, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will pursue that.

We should go on doggedly with the petition. In two weeks, the clerk will bring the committee a report about committee visits, and that might well include areas that are not performing. Obviously that is a matter for the committee to discuss, but I recommend that we pick up some of that information when we get the clerk’s report in two weeks and that we do a site visit. It is up to the committee whether all of us go on such a visit, but we should speak to the health boards that are directly concerned. The figures that we are getting are frankly appalling.

I agree, convener. You and I have been present at meetings—you have declared our interest already—at which the attitude of certain health boards is shown to be upsetting people significantly. The suggestion of a visit to one or two of the health boards is a good one, and I agree that we should wait to hear the clerk’s proposals.

The convener’s proposal of site visits is appropriate. Perhaps we could divide up the committee and visit more than one health board, then come back and share our experiences. That might be a way to proceed.

There is also the rapporteur model, in which two or three members go to each site. That would be worth exploring. I do not want to get beyond myself, but if we are going to visit other areas, we should try to involve the education team, so that we can have a fuller visit of the Scottish Parliament to a particular area. Perhaps we can talk about that in a couple of weeks’ time. I recommend strongly that either some members of the committee or the entire committee visit two or three of the health board areas in which there are problems, as well as, perhaps, areas that are performing well, so that we can compare and contrast the performance.

Do we agree with the suggestion to continue the petition and await the clerk’s report? Do we also agree to follow recommendation 17(1) in the paper and ask the Scottish Government to provide a list of the boards’ appointed senior members who will be taking the work forward; by what date it expects boards to have their action plans in place; and whether the plans will be made available to the committee? I understand that the deadline has passed for that, and that not all health boards have submitted. We can perhaps get details of that from the Scottish Government, too.

Do members agree to the suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Kinship Carers (PE1420)

PE1420, in the name of Teresa McNally, on behalf of Clacks kinship carers, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise the real value of kinship carers and give them parity with foster carers throughout Scotland.

The report that has been produced for us is quite enlightening in terms of the result of the survey of local authorities, to which 20 local authorities responded, and the variance in the payments that are made to kinship carers, compared with foster carers. The petition makes a link between the payment that is received by foster carers and the payment that is received by kinship carers.

Based on the information before us, I suggest that we refer the petition to the relevant committee. We can ask it to consider the work that we have done so far, take on board the issues that have been raised and invite the petitioners to give evidence to the committee, to ensure that their views are understood. Given the work that has been done by this committee, such an examination of the issue by the subject committee would be invaluable with regard to the future of kinship carer payments.

Just to be clear, your recommendation is that the petition be sent to the Education and Culture Committee and that we ask it to take further evidence.

That is correct.

Obviously, we cannot insist that another committee take evidence, but we can recommend that it do so. Do we agree with the suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 15:38.