Youth Football (PE1319)
Agenda item 3 is the consideration of seven continued petitions. The first is PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have the clerk’s note and a submission from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
Although I was not on the committee for the previous considerations of this petition, I am aware of the issues, and I thank the commissioner for his report. Clearly, there are serious and fundamental concerns to address, and I very much hope that the committee will pursue them vigorously. I invite contributions from members.
I ask that we revisit the petition after the members’ business debate on the topic and that we bring the commissioner in to report on his findings.
As there is an issue to address, it would be worth hearing from the commissioner. From my limited experience of the issue, it is not simply about releasing the young person from the contract, but about the period for which they can or should be retained. In the Netherlands, if a youngster is signed at an elite level, the club is obliged to keep, not discard them.
Hearing from the commissioner and, indeed, hearing about the wider debate would address matters. The issue goes slightly wider than the ability to get out of a contract and the reward, if there is one, to a youth football club. A professional club has an obligation to any youngster that it takes on.
I would probably agree. The petition asks the serious question whether it is appropriate for professional clubs to enter into a contract with children under 16. I am quite happy to bring in the commissioner and perhaps, at a later date, the Scottish Football Association.
I agree that there is a strong argument for inviting the commissioner to address the committee.
I do not think that the members’ business debate that David Torrance mentioned will have any impact on the timescale of our discussions, given that it is happening next week. In view of the committee’s schedule, that should not cause a problem, but it would be good to see whether any further information comes to light during the debate before we hear from the commissioner.
As there are no other comments, do we agree to invite the commissioner before us and, after that, offer the SFA an invitation to attend a meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
The next petition is PE1480, by Amanda Kopel, on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer’s awareness campaign, on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness. Members have the clerk’s note, and I invite comments from members.
I am very disappointed with regard to where we have managed to get with the petition—it has found itself rather stuck. We have heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—I cannot fully recall, but I think that we might have heard from the current cabinet secretary and her predecessor—and I have read the latest letter, which seems to have been drafted incredibly carefully so that matters are not progressed one way or the other.
It is coming up to two years since the petition was submitted, and Mr Kopel has since died. We have established that the number of people under the age of 65 affected by this issue is relatively small, and there also seems to be widespread sympathy around the matter. Ultimately, if the Scottish Government is not going to act, I would just as soon know that as not. I do not think that our best interests are served by having the matter in a permanent state of limbo.
I do not know whether what we are looking for is best achieved by inviting the cabinet secretary back to establish what is happening or by sending the cabinet secretary a very direct letter, saying that this is all fine and well but asking whether she expects the timetable to resolve itself in early course, and when she expects to come to a firm view about whether the care will be provided. If it is not to be provided, it is better for us to know that and to move forward on that basis.
I am interested to know what other members think, but that is what I want to know from the cabinet secretary. However, I do not know whether I need the cabinet secretary to come here if she is prepared to tell me what I need to know in writing.
Jackson Carlaw makes a fair point: a letter would probably be better. Although evidence-taking sessions are important, we should not use them if the answer is going to be a simple and straightforward yes or no. Given where we are in the electoral and political calendar, the best thing that we can do is to try to get a commitment or otherwise. It might be that the proposal is simply not affordable, but, instead of an evidence-taking session with the cabinet secretary, I would veer towards sending a direct letter, saying that we really need to know this information and, if her position is that she does not know yet, asking when she will know. After all, we might want to bring her in to discuss more important matters—and, in saying that, I am not denigrating this particular issue. I am just pointing out that we might need to bring the cabinet secretary in for a longer evidence-taking session on another topic, and in this case, we might simply need to ask her a number of direct questions. On that basis, I am more for sending a direct letter.
I am not sure whether we can be any more direct than the previous letter that we wrote to the cabinet secretary, in which we put the very points that have been raised today. I think that everybody agrees that the progress on the petition has been really slow.
The last time the cabinet secretary was here, she advised us that she had met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the matter, but that meeting has never really taken place. I suggest, therefore, that we get the cabinet secretary back in and put those direct questions to her. She might say that, for whatever reason, the Government is not going to take the matter forward, but we need to know.
I disagree, but fair enough.
Do colleagues agree?
Members indicated agreement.
I am comfortable with that, convener.
Group B Streptococcus in Pregnancy (PE1505)
The next petition is PE1505, by Jackie Watt, on awareness of streptococcus B in pregnancy and among infants. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
Although this petition was interesting, I think that we can move to close it, given that the Government has given an undertaking to consult the petitioner on the drafting of the new booklet, which will offer advice. That helpful resolution of the issues involved allows us to bring the petition to a close.
Do members agree with Jackson Carlaw?
Members indicated agreement.
Private Schools (Charitable Status) (PE1531)
The next petition is PE1531, by Ashley Husband Powton, on removing charitable status from private schools. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
Having carefully read the responses that we have received and having examined the issues that have been raised, particularly by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, I have to say that the difficulty that I have is with the term “independent schools”. OSCR has rightly said that “independent schools” include special needs schools that are established with charitable status and refers to Donaldson’s school, the Royal Blind school and Capability Scotland schools. I know that those in the independent sector in Scotland do not like the term “private education”, preferring to use the term “independent”.
The aim is to get to a point where we can examine the matter clearly and be able to make a distinction between the special needs provision as described by OSCR and what is provided by the other parts of the independent schooling sector. Given OSCR’s comments, I am minded to suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it would consider reviewing the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 with a view to providing a better definition of “charitable” in the context both of special educational needs and of private education in Scotland. That would allow us to get a clear steer from OSCR on its definition of what constitutes charitable status education provision in Scotland. There are independent schools that are delivering what I would describe as charitable aims and objectives by meeting special educational needs, while other schools have been lumped in with them and therefore get the special provisions that are afforded to schools with charitable status.
12:00
I continue to find the petitioner’s submissions unhelpful and not terribly well phrased or sympathetic.
I am not altogether sure whether the distinction that Mr Wilson seeks to make is not understood by the Government and by OSCR. I have no particular objection to the question being put, but I feel that we are going round the houses on this, given that the Scottish Government has said that it has no particular interest in reviewing the legislation or its terms of reference and no intention of doing so. Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no political will to make progress on the petitioner’s aims. Although I am happy for the question that Mr Wilson suggested to be put, I think that that should be done with a view, ultimately, to our closing the petition, as there seems to be no prospect of the Scottish Government acting on it.
When the petitioner appeared before the committee, there was some discussion of the possibility of extending charitable status to state schools, including those attended by children with additional support needs. Can that suggestion be included in the letter to the Scottish Government, given that the committee has previously discussed it?
We could add that to our letter. Do members agree to the proposed course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Residential Care (Severely Learning-disabled People) (PE1545)
The next petition is PE1545, by Ann Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust, on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
If members have no comments, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government, the chief social work adviser and Professor Sally-Ann Cooper to seek further information and views. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
The next petition is PE1548, by Beth Morrison, on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. Again, members have a note by the clerk and the submissions, and I invite contributions from members.
I think that there is an issue here and we should ask the Government to respond to the concerns that have been raised. We should also ask the General Teaching Council for Scotland about guidance on and criteria for the treatment of severely disabled children in school. Whether we are talking about the use of restraint by the police or the use of restraint on children in school, we are in a new world and we must try to get things right. To that end, it would be appropriate for us to get an understanding of where we are and to look towards improving the guidance and guidelines.
I was rather concerned about some of the language in the Educational Institute of Scotland’s submission. It was useful to get it, but it was based on a policy decision taken at the 2005 EIS annual general meeting. The reference to “violent situations” does not accurately reflect the point that petitioner is trying to raise, because the issue is about how restraint is used by teaching staff and other members of staff in an educational setting.
The paragraph on violent situations is right to mention risk assessments, which is something that the petitioner has raised. Not every child who might be vulnerable in a school setting is having a risk assessment carried out, and it has been noted that appropriate use of alternative methods, including restraint, might be required for some children. The EIS also points out that there is an issue about self-harm, which is why the child might need to be restrained. However, the issue that the petitioner has raised is about the restraint methods that are being used, how restraint is being carried out and who is training not just the teaching staff, but all staff in an educational setting, including janitorial, cleaning and catering staff, who should also be aware of a vulnerable child’s needs.
I am keen to raise the petition with the GTCS, as has been suggested, but also to flag it up again with the Scottish Government, given that some of the issues that have been highlighted are about the cost of providing training and the need to train individuals in a school setting. It is normally the headteacher who receives that training, but given that headteachers are not always in the school setting when action is required, it would be useful to get some clear indication from the Scottish Government as to what advice or guidance is being given to local authorities on advising headteachers and other staff in a school setting on appropriate methods of restraint when required.
I would reinforce that with a risk assessment that would have to be notified and carried out prior to such action being taken, but it would be worth while to write to the Scottish Government on this, as there are clearly some issues about the methods of restraint that are being used. Although the EIS has quite rightly made it clear that teaching staff might face disciplinary or legal action if they use inappropriate restraint methods that lead to the child being harmed, it is clearly an issue of concern that we do not have a common approach throughout the education service on the methods of restraint that are appropriate when such restraint is required.
I note that the petition has received public support from Dame Esther Rantzen, as I believe she is now styled. I hope that I have got that right—the protocol police, who are many and legion within the Conservative Party, will correct me if I am wrong.
I also note that the petitioners are hugely encouraged by the quality and depth of the varied responses that we have received. If we write again to the Scottish Government, it would be of benefit to the colour of its future response to mention some of the issues that have been raised, so I would also like that information to go to the Scottish Government.
Do members agree to write to the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish Government with the points that have been raised by John Wilson and Jackson Carlaw?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Abuse (Mandatory Reporting) (PE1551)
The final petition is PE1551, by Scott Pattinson, on mandatory reporting of child abuse. Members have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions, and I invite questions and contributions from members.
This is a deeply complex issue. Although we need to push the Scottish Government for a response to our letter of 18 March, we must also ensure that the Government and, indeed, we get it right. There are concerns about actions and possible reactions—in other words, unintended consequences—but we must try to make some progress here. There is an underlying issue to address and we need to chase the Government for an update.
There have been several follow-ups, but it has been more than two months since the committee wrote to the Scottish Government on this matter and we have yet to receive its reply. This is a very important matter that deserves a response. As with our discussion of the last petition, I draw members’ attention to the submissions that we have already received. There have been suggestions for a full public consultation, further debate and further research. Do members agree to invite the Scottish Government to comment on those suggestions in addition to responding to our original request for its views?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New PetitionsNext
Annual Report