Youth Football (PE1319)
We will now consider a number of current petitions. The first is PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have a note from the clerk and various submissions, and I should also tell the committee that although Iain Gray—who has been very interested in this petition—cannot be with us this morning, he has expressed his support for it. I also declare an interest as a trustee of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club.
In the past, members have expressed a very strong interest in this petition, which raises issues that go beyond a simple interest in football. It is also about the employment of young people, fair treatment directives and, indeed, the rights of the child, which I know Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People has looked at.
The petition has been discussed in round-table session in the past. Before I throw the matter open to discussion, I should say that my own view is that it would make a lot of sense to have another round-table discussion on the issue of training compensation for young players. Members have a list of people who could be included in that evidence session, but I simply want to flag up my particular view on the matter.
Do members have any comments?
Although it is interesting to see what action has been taken, I do not believe that the action itself addresses all the points raised in the petition. Training arrangements have been mentioned but the petition covers a much wider set of issues including contracts with children under 16; certain social, educational and psychological effects; the effect of compensation payments between member clubs; and increasing the educational target. The petitioner raised about six issues and although we welcome the fact that the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League have addressed the training compensation issue, I do not feel that it is a comprehensive response to the issues raised in the petition.
I therefore support the suggestion of a round-table evidence session and the recommendation that we seek representatives from clubs other than the two large Glasgow clubs to give us an understanding of the activity happening nearer the ground and how the issue is perceived by lesser clubs that are not necessarily in the premier division. After all, that is where the impact will be felt.
Thank you for that. Did you have anything to add, Mr Wilson?
10:30
Not really, convener, except to say that it would be interesting to have another round-table discussion.
It would be useful to get an update from the SFA and the SPFL on the changes that have taken place since we first considered the petition and on where those bodies are going, particularly with regard to the working group that was set up to examine the issue.
As the convener said, the petition has continued for a number of years and has gained cross-party support for getting to the bottom of the issue and resolving the situation in which young teenagers are denied the opportunity to play football for a club that is not the original club with which they signed up.
A round-table discussion would give us an opportunity to find out whether there is significant movement within professional football to ensure that we allow young people to play football without being in effect debarred or prohibited from doing so because of the financial constraints that some clubs are placing on other clubs to allow those young people to play.
That is a good point. In fairness, I am not suggesting that there has been no action; I know that Campbell Ogilvie, who is the SFA president, has formed a working party and has a great interest in the area. Nevertheless, there are outstanding issues, and a round-table discussion would be useful.
I am happy to go along with the plan for a round-table discussion, but I declare an interest as a member of the Raith Supporters Trust.
I agree to a round-table discussion, from which we would benefit.
I agree that a round-table discussion is a good idea. However, I note the suggestion in the submission from the Real Grassroots that Neil Doncaster, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Professional Football League, should be included in the round-table event. I do not see his name on the suggested list of attendees.
Yes, it would make sense to include that key player.
Does Jackson Carlaw wish to say anything?
I have nothing to contribute, convener.
Are members agreed that we will convene a round-table discussion and include Neil Doncaster as has been recommended? Do members agree that the clerk can go away and arrange that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank William Smith and Scott Robertson for their interest in the subject. They have raised some interesting points, and I hope that a round-table discussion will resolve some of the outstanding issues.
Bond of Caution (PE1412)
The next current petition is PE1412, by Bill McDowell, on bonds of caution. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. As members will know, the Scottish Government states in summary that it will not prioritise the work and is seeking to consult on this area, so there are issues with the timescale.
One suggestion is that we defer consideration of the petition until the end of the year so that we know the results of the Scottish Government’s consultation. We do not have any control over the timescale because of the way in which the Scottish Government has prioritised the issue—or rather, the lack of priority that it has given it—so the end of the year is our best guess as to when the consultation will be completed. That is the reason for the rather lengthy deferral that we are suggesting. Do members have any views?
I am minded to close the petition under rule 50.7, if that is the correct rule. The Scottish Government has said that it will consider the issue only if it has time. Closing the petition would offer the petitioner the opportunity to come back with a fresh petition at a later date, as opposed to our simply deferring reconsideration of the current petition for 10 months when the Scottish Government’s programme might not be any further forward.
It would be more useful to close the petition, with a view to allowing the petitioners to submit a fresh petition once the Scottish Government has set out its legislative programme, which might incorporate the petitioner’s wishes. That would be more appropriate.
Do members have any views on John Wilson’s suggestion?
I understand why John Wilson says that, but I am not altogether satisfied with the Government’s response or its justification for the lack of action. I note that we are advised that the Scottish Law Commission undertook a detailed review of the matter and that there was an overwhelming response in support of the move that the petitioner has articulated. Although the petition has come to us under the aegis of the petitioner, clearly he is articulating a view that enjoys much wider support.
I am curious about the Government’s response. It kind of sets out the situation, but it is not terribly clear to me why the Government takes the view that it does not want to do anything about it, other than because it needs to have time. I find that a curious response. I am minded to support the original proposition, rather than let the thing drift off.
As members know, the issue would require primary legislation, so there are issues of parliamentary time and willingness.
Well, there is no shortage of that.
Thank you, Mr Carlaw.
John Wilson’s view is that we should close the petition, for the reasons that he laid out, and Jackson Carlaw’s view is to defer it and look at it again at the end of the year. Can I have other members’ views?
There is a strong argument for closing the petition for the time being. As John Wilson stated, the petitioner has the opportunity to come back at a later date, once things have moved on.
If the Scottish Government brought forward consideration of the issue, for whatever reason, would the petitioner be alerted to that?
Do you mean if the Scottish Government decided over the next few months to legislate?
My concern is whether if we close the petition and the Scottish Government brings the issue forward for whatever reason, the petitioner will be alerted.
If we decided to close the petition, we could write to the Scottish Government to ask it to ensure that the petitioner is kept up to date with any developments from the Scottish Government.
I note that the committee closed a previous petition on the basis that it would allow the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a consultation. It has undertaken its consultation, which supports what the petitioner is asking for. A fresh petition has come to the committee and we are proposing to close that too, with no progress having been made, despite the fact that the commitment of the previous petition was fulfilled and the Law Commission consultation seemed to support its conclusion. I cannot understand why we are being so unhelpful and wishing to bury the issue.
I am quite happy to defer.
We do not normally put decisions to votes, but on my quick arithmetic it looks like—
It is my understanding that the majority wants to keep the petition open, and I am happy to defer to that majority. However, rather than deferring the petition for another 10 months, we should seek assurances from the Scottish Government on any timetable that it might propose to review the SLC report, as Jackson Carlaw indicated. It is difficult to keep petitions open when we know that there is no likelihood of an early resolution to them. Unless we get some commitment from the Scottish Government to bring the issue into the legislative programme in the near future—or an answer to the contrary—we should reconsider the petition as early as possible.
We should defer the petition and write again to the Scottish Government—I know that we have written to it recently—to say that the committee is deferring the petition because we are keen for the Government to make some active decisions on it, and to ask it please to let us know what it will do on consultation and in any future legislation. That way, we would have something in focus and we could come back to look at the petition after a further period. Would that satisfy the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
We agree to defer, although we will write to chase up the Scottish Government.
Respite Services (Young Disabled Adults) (PE1499)
PE1499, by Robert Watson on behalf of the What About Us? campaign group, concerns the creation of suitable respite services for younger disabled adults with life-limiting conditions. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
Again, I flag up the fact that a few organisations have not responded. Chic Brodie talked about that in relation to another petition.
I am sorry, convener, but I am on a roll on the subject of how some people are treating this committee—there will be more of it later. We should ask the four councils that did not reply why they did not reply. However, even more offensive than the fact that some people have not replied is the fact that the letters from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Midlothian Council are virtually the same. Some people might say that we should expect that, but I certainly do not, and I wonder how much effort has gone into considering the contributions on this subject.
I understand that, in the current financial situation, certain things must be squeezed, but why have councils not spoken to people in the third sector, for example, and to social enterprise organisations that might pick up work that needs to be done? It will be interesting to see whether such services are picked up in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am disappointed that there is absolutely no mention of how the services could be delivered by others.
In addition, it is surprising that we are told that there is nowhere to house any of these activities when we know that there are wheens of buildings and fixed assets in the possession of local authorities.
I should have added that the Health and Sport Committee is having an evidence-taking session on transition services. That might aid our understanding of the issue.
If the Health and Sport Committee is having a round-table discussion and taking evidence on the issue, why should we not refer the petition to that committee? Is the issue that it deals with too specialised to be dealt with in that context?
If you are comfortable with making that recommendation, Mr Carlaw, I would certainly support it.
Well, that is what I suggest. There is an early opportunity for the petition to be incorporated into that evidence-taking process. That would be a sensible route to go down.
Do members agree with the suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
We will refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, as it is actively considering the matter. It is a good petition, and I am sure that our colleagues on that committee will take its points on board.
I still think that we need to prompt those whom we ask for information to understand that we are not asking for it casually; we expect them to answer because we serve the people who sit at the other end of this table. I would also like to understand why Midlothian Council chose simply to lift the contents of the COSLA paper without giving any independent assessment of how the issue affects it.
That is a good point, Mr Brodie. If we refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, we can still ask the people who have not written in why they did not do so, and raise the points that Chic Brodie has raised.
A Sunshine Act for Scotland (PE1493)
PE1493, by Peter John Gordon, is on a sunshine act for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk, submissions and the SPICe briefing on international legislation. Obviously, there are a few options for action. Again, this is a strong and interesting petition.
One proposal is that we write to the Scottish Government to clarify what information it has requested from NHS boards and to confirm that all health board responses will be forwarded to the committee for consideration as written evidence. Other options include writing to the United Kingdom Department of Health.
I note that the Department of Health has indicated that it intends to provide a response. The issue involves quite a big principle and would have quite an important effect on policy. On this occasion, therefore, I am inclined to give a little more time to the process, as there might need to be a discussion that will inform any response that we receive. I would simply want to prompt those who have not responded at this stage, including the Scottish Government, to do so. I do not think that anyone is trying to frustrate our consideration of the issue; I just think that it would be better to consider the issue on a more informed basis.
Do we agree to follow option 2, which I outlined earlier?
Members indicated agreement.
Confidentiality Clauses (NHS Scotland) (PE1495)
The next current petition is PE1495, by Rab Wilson, on behalf of Accountability Scotland, on the use of gagging clauses and agreements with national health service staff in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite members to comment.
I recognise the work that has been done by Rab Wilson and the people who are working with him on the petition. Regrettably, in the past two months, I have had two instances of this issue arising in medical practices and a hospital in Ayrshire and Arran. I have taken them up because they affected me personally.
I say again that I do not understand why the issue is not taken seriously. First, I note that NHS Highland and NHS Borders do not feel that it is of such import that they need to respond to the committee. Secondly, when I look at the responses that we have had from NHS Lothian and NHS Grampian, I see—guess what?—that the answers to the first question are exactly the same. How much interest really exists in the issue? It is too easy to pick up somebody else’s written statement and present that to us. The fact that the responses are exactly the same highlights that.
Some of the things that are being done require to be audited and faithfully followed, and I think that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is committed to that. However, on the issue of making training available, whether it is online or not, we must ensure that there are meaningful outcomes, as established in the letter from the cabinet secretary, in various statements and by those health boards that have had the decency to reply. We need to ensure that the outcomes of things such as the human resources online system and the policy for preventing and dealing with bullying and harassment are as we would anticipate and that we have an open and transparent system.
If possible, I would like to see some of the settlement agreements as they are now—suitably redacted, of course. On practice, I would like to make sure that the appropriate things are being applied. Once the plans are in place, there might be a request to Audit Scotland at some stage to go in and check that they are being effected in the way in which they are meant to be, and certainly in the manner that we expect.
I hear what Mr Brodie says. I am not usually one to rush to the Government’s defence, but it is clear from the cabinet secretary’s response that the Scottish Government does not support an outright ban on the use of confidentiality clauses. That is a clear statement of the Scottish Government’s position in relation to the petition. Therefore, it seems to me that the progress of the petition beyond that becomes a political consideration rather than a proposed outcome that the committee can hope to effect.
Although the issue is important, I think that it now becomes one of party politics and, in those circumstances, I am minded to move to close the petition.
Before I bring Chic Brodie back in, I add that, unfortunately, some organisations have not yet responded, so there is a lack of completeness. I should have mentioned that at the start.
I totally disagree with what Jackson Carlaw has said. This is not an issue of party politics. I am being as robust as I can be in challenging the Government and the associated agencies to ensure that the outcome that we expect—openness and transparency—is achieved.
Of course there must be confidentiality or settlement agreements in terms of personal compensation and things like that. That is acceptable. However, what is not acceptable—the Government says this itself, and I support it—is any attempt to stop people highlighting processes that might be against the safety and interests of both employees and patients. Yes, we must have—
I understand that but in that case what is the object of the committee continuing its work on the issue? That is what I am unclear about.
From my point of view, the end objective—
—is to change the Government’s view.
The Government’s view is clear. We must progress things to ensure that at the end of the day the outcome is that there are no cases of bullying or harassment in the health service.
Mr Brodie is right to continue to raise concerns about certain confidentiality agreements—or what the petitioners describe as gagging orders—that have been placed on staff. I think that the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of the cabinet secretary’s response to Mr Findlay makes it clear that the cabinet secretary is keen to ensure that no one should have an order placed on them that stops them speaking out on patient safety or treatment issues. Perhaps it is on that point that, as the convener has suggested, we should write to the organisations that have not yet responded. We should also write to the Scottish Government to seek assurances that it is doing everything in its power to ensure that NHS boards in Scotland are not subjecting staff to certain conditions that might be seen as gagging orders and which stop people speaking out.
As I understand it, the concern is that, although the cabinet secretary can make general comments, the relationship in question is between the doctor, the nurse, the staff member or whoever is involved and the NHS board, not the Scottish Government. In other words, the employer-employee contractual arrangement is between the NHS board and the employee. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the Scottish Government is sending out a clear message to boards and managers in those boards that we will not tolerate the use of gagging orders to deny staff the opportunity to speak out where they see wrongdoing.
We can write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification of the matter but, as I have said, we are mired in the problem of employee-employer relationships, which neither the Scottish Government nor the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has any control over. The legislation and guidance on relationships between employers and employees are currently vested with Westminster. However, we can certainly impress on the cabinet secretary the need to get the message out to health boards throughout Scotland that we expect all staff, whether or not they have raised issues of patient safety or working practices, to be protected and to have the right to continue to raise such issues.
Those are useful comments. Indeed, that is why I am quite keen to have all the responses before we make any final decision on this petition. After all, there are other examples of health policies that the Scottish Government has laid down being interpreted in slightly different ways by different health boards. For example, the speed of response might be different. That was the case with insulin pumps, in which there was a world of difference between the approaches taken in different health board areas. That could be taken as an analogy in considering employment rights. In my view, we need to get responses from all the health boards before we make a final decision on what we do. As a result, I recommend that we write to the boards that have yet to respond and discuss the issue when we get back those responses.
John Wilson is right. I raised the point about employer-employee relationships in terms of legislation and compensation. The cabinet secretary has put out a pretty clear message. I want to keep the petition going, because I want to see the outcomes of the actions that we are told are taking place to ensure that they are effective. Until we are absolutely sure about that, I do not think that we should be shutting this petition off.
The majority view is that we should continue the petition to make sure that we chase up the responses and look at the matter again in future. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thyroid and Adrenal Testing and Treatment (PE1463)
Our final current petition is PE1463, by Lorraine Cleaver, on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I welcome Elaine Smith to the meeting. Members should note that since the committee’s previous consideration of the petition, two of the petitioners—Marian Dyer and Sandra Whyte—have indicated that they no longer wish to be involved in it. I am sure that members would wish to join me in thanking Marian Dyer and Sandra Whyte for their efforts on the petition and wishing them well in the future. I invite Elaine Smith to make a brief contribution, because I know that she has taken a lot of interest in the petition and has a lot of expertise to share.
I thank the committee for the time that it has taken so far to look at this petition and for taking it seriously. That gives hope to hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Scotland, particularly, but not only, women.
The last time I was before the committee I was about to go to a conference—I believe that the video is now available; I do not know whether the committee has been able to see it. The conference was excellent and involved patients and people from the profession. I wanted to draw it to your attention, because it was particularly good.
I thank the committee for reading the personal stories that I handed out. Unfortunately, given that a number of the people involved want to remain anonymous, the stories cannot be put in the public domain. People are often frightened that they will be struck off from their GP practices. That fear runs through their stories. There is also the issue of GPs being frightened that they will be struck off for giving patients desiccated thyroid hormone. In relation to that issue, I advise the committee of the sad death of Dr Skinner, whom you will have heard a lot about. Dr Skinner did give patients desiccated thyroid hormone. As you may have read in some of the stories, his death has left some patients desperate to know what will happen to them and how they will stay well in the future if they cannot get the hormone prescribed.
I turn to the Scottish Government letter that the committee received. I will come to the more positive paragraph in a moment, but the second paragraph states that the Scottish Government has no plans to set up a short-life working group because
“there is no evidence base to support the changes being sought by the petition.”
That is a bit dispiriting for the petitioner. Perhaps it is based on not listening to patients and hearing their stories because they are parked on thyroxine. Patients who have an underactive thyroid are put on thyroxine and told, “If you take this pill, you’ll be fine,” so they do not connect the ME that they have been diagnosed with, the hair loss, the weight gain, the heart disease, the fibromyalgia or the depression with their thyroid problem. It seems to me that GPs do not tend to make that connection either.
The guidance on the quality and outcomes framework raises an issue. I understand that points are given for diagnosis, but a lot fewer points are given for diagnosing thyroid problems than for diagnosing depression, although depression can be part of the thyroid problem. That is worrying.
The Government letter refers to there perhaps not being a need for research. We need research to find the evidence—research that is funded not by big pharma but in a different way, so that it does not lead back to thyroxine being the be all and end all for thyroid problems.
11:00The second part of the Scottish Government’s letter seems more positive, in that the Government says that it will commission a piece of work, although I am not quite clear whether it will be specifically about thyroid conditions or all conditions. Perhaps the committee knows better on that.
The committee has to decide today whether to continue the petition or do something else. That is a matter for the committee, but if I might be so bold as to put my opinion on the record, I think that the committee could keep the petition open to await the outcome of the work that the Government is carrying out and then review the results of that work. Alternatively, members could consider that the issue is so huge—they may have seen that from some of the stories that they have read—that the committee might do its own inquiry, as it has done for other health issues, such as vitamin D deficiency and diabetes, which also tie back to thyroid problems, in one way or another, in quite a lot of cases.
The committee could do its own inquiry, but I think that getting this far in getting attention and action on the issue has been excellent. Patients like me have literally been brought back from the dead—I have no hesitation in saying that. If the issues could be addressed properly and patients could get on to the right treatment, it could save the NHS an absolute fortune in the long run.
The final issue is that there is still only one supplier of T3 in Scotland. I understand that at the moment one batch of T3 has had less potency than other batches, which again is causing people to be ill. The issues are on-going. Personally, I would be grateful if the committee would consider keeping the petition going to await the outcome of the Government’s deliberations as well as looking further into the issues itself.
I thank Elaine Smith for her time and effort, which have been very helpful. Elaine has made a couple of suggestions and there are also suggestions in our briefing paper.
My view is that it is important to keep the petition going. I would like to write to the Scottish Government to seek further details on the timescale for the work that it has committed to undertake in relation to the petition. That does not rule out taking anything further, but I think that we need to get that raw material. In the meantime, if the committee agrees, I see no reason why we should not also write to the Government about the supplier of T3. The Government might feel that the issue is not within its remit, but getting supplies of key medication in Scotland is a sort of devolved issue. It would be interesting to see what the Government’s view is on that.
I agree in general with what you said, convener. Although the T3 issue is clearly very important, I believe that there is a much wider issue in terms of drug issuance and procurement. However, that is for another place, and I support the action that you suggested.
Given the round-table discussion that we had and the very personal testimony that we received and bore witness to, I am rather disappointed and disheartened by the Government’s response. Elaine Smith made a very pertinent point when she said that there is a degree of ambiguity about the piece of work that is to be undertaken, in that it looks as if it might be going to broaden the issue out to be one of generality that is way beyond the particular area that we have been focused on. It would be helpful when you write to the Government about the timelines, convener, to get some idea of the scope of the work and whether it will cover every kind of condition. I want to see progress in relation to the condition on which we have taken a great deal of evidence and have a degree of understanding. I might not necessarily take the same view if conditions were being considered just in the general sense, which might lead to no action being taken at all. It is important that the thing that we have been looking at is not lost in the middle of a discussion about a lot of other things too.
That is a fair point.
For example, the Government refers to
“treatment in areas where the evidence is limited”.
Well, that is homoeopathic medicine. We could be away off down all manner of side routes if we are not careful. It is important that we do not lose sight of the thing that we want to discuss.
Exactly. The work needs to be more specific.
I am keen to get further details from the Scottish Government on the timescale of its work, but we should bear in mind Elaine Smith’s suggestion on the merits of an inquiry and keep that on the table for future consideration.
I will not reiterate other members’ suggestions, but I will highlight Elaine Smith’s concerns about the limitations and production of T3. I am aware that we have approached the cabinet secretary before, but it is extremely important that we find out his views on the matter.
I am happy to go along with the recommendations.
Like other members, I agree that we need clarification on paragraph 3 of the Scottish Government’s letter and what it will investigate. Unfortunately Jackson Carlaw is right in saying that a number of conditions could be the subject of such an investigation. The committee has dealt with a number of such issues and Elaine Smith has alluded to some of the conditions that could overlap into a wider debate.
We need the Government to respond more positively on the treatment of patients with the condition. Elaine Smith made an interesting point about T3’s potency and how patients feel that something has changed in the medication that makes it less effective. I am aware that patients with other conditions have made similar points about the prescribed medication not having the same impact. Therefore, when we write to the Scottish Government we should ask it to investigate, if it can, the relative strengths of the medication to ensure that dosage, strength or whatever is consistent.
Given that there is only one supplier of the medication—in effect it has a monopoly on providing the drug—we should tell the Scottish Government about the need to be careful about such monopolies and that we should be seeking the best deal for not only the patients but the NHS.
In summary, we will continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government in the terms identified, including on the issue of the monopoly supplier. We will keep our tactical options, such as whether to hold an inquiry, open until we receive the Government’s response. Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Elaine Smith for coming along.
Previous
New Petition