 I welcome you all to today's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee and, as always, I can ask everyone to switch off their electronic devices because it does interfere with our sound systems. We have apologies today from Jackson Carlos, attending the Health and Sport Committee, and Cameron Buchanan is in attendance as his substitute. The next item of business is the round table discussion on PE1319 on improving youth football in Scotland. Members will note by the clerks, paper 1, and a submission from the petitioners. I welcome everyone to the meeting and thank you all for coming along today. We have had apologies from Malcolm McGregor, who is an advocate from campus chambers, as he has to be in court today. I start by asking if everyone can introduce himself. My name is David Stewart. I am a Labour MSP from the Highlands and Islands region, and perhaps I could declare as always the fact that I am a trustee of Inverness, Calais, Thistle, but any comments I make are prudent of my own, and I cannot speak for my club otherwise I am in serious trouble at my next tone game. I am Chic Groriam, SNP MSP, south of Scotland. I am John Moray, Cymru director, and I am loading football club. Good morning and welcome. I am Anne McTaggart, MSP for Glasgow. Good morning, everyone. My name is Scott Robertson, one half of the real grassroots. I have come dressed today because I wanted to make the point that I am just a football coach, like tens of thousands of other volunteers across Scotland. Good morning. I am Angus MacDonald, MSP for Falkirk East. Good morning. My name is Willie Smith. I am the chairman, founder of Filwood Boys, Cymru and Glasgow, and also the co-founder of realgrashroots.co.uk. Good morning. I am Cameron Buchanan, Conservative MSP for Llywbian. Good morning. I am Neil Donkister, chief executive of the Scottish Professional Football League, which is the newly merged league that represents all 42 professional football clubs in Scotland. Good morning. I am David Torrance, MSP for Coddy constituency. I am a declare a registered investor. I am a member of the Rafe Trust. Good morning. I am Andrew McKinlay. I am the director of Football Governance and Regulation at the Scottish Football Association. Good morning. I am John Wilson, MSP for Central Scotland. Thank you, colleagues. The purpose of the round table is to enable everyone here to discuss the issues of training compensation and contracts involving young players, as raised by the petitions of Willie Smith and Scott Robertson. If you can make your contributions through yourself, that would be very helpful. We have an hour for this really important discussion. Again, I would like to thank everyone for giving up their valuable time to be here, because that really helps the quality of the debate that we will get today. I start by asking a couple of questions, then I will ask my colleagues to ask someone a number of questions. Again, if you feel that your best qualified answer is just to please indicate. The first question is, what changes in policy and law have taken place since the petition was first raised in 2010? In a typical political way, I will probably answer my own question by saying that I know that the burner drilling of the European Court of Justice has basically said that the costs of training young players—or the actual transfer fee element—must not exceed the actual costs of training of individual players. Who feels that they are best qualified to come in on that particular issue? There are a number of areas in which we have made changes since the initial petition. We have been involved in quite a number of discussions with Mr Smith and Mr Robertson. One of the main changes that we have made is in relation to the reimbursement of training costs. I think that it should be important to know that this is set against a backdrop that FIFA, the international football federation, requires associations to have in place a system to reward clubs for investing in the training and education of players. It is a mandatory requirement for associations to have that. One issue in the past was that there were two sets of reimbursement training costs. One was governed by ourselves, one was governed by the SPL and the SFL, as it was at that time, just used the same one as us. Some of the figures in there were seen as being fairly random and it was unclear as to how they had an association with the costs that were being spent. We undertook an exercise to look at the costs that were spent by clubs in relation to the training and development of players. It became clear to us that there was a clear correlation between what was spent and the star ratings that clubs had in relation to our club academy, Scotland scheme. Because of that, we have set up a new matrix type system that looks at the higher up you are, the more you have spent and the more that you would expect to get in relation to the reimbursement of training costs. In tandem with that, we have also brought in two new rules making it quite clear that no rights of compensation that a club may have shall prevent a player from moving to a new club. It was seen in the past that the club that was due the conversation was actually stopping the player from moving to a new club and we have put in a rule so that a club cannot do that. On the limited occasions where we have had issues, I would say that in the last two years since I have been at the association, this has been less than a handful, we are brought in effectively as mediators. We help with the clubs, with the parents, with the players to look for a compromise situation to hopefully get the player released to the new club. That is probably the biggest area. There are other areas, however, where we have also made changes as the real grassroots guys are aware. One of them is in relation to the registration and licensing of team scouts. We have brought in new rules around that to put in place a new process so that senior clubs have to register their team scouts. That has been quite successful. There was also an issue around where players were released from Club Academy Scotland clubs and they seemed to go into the ether, so to speak, lost to football. That is not a good thing, so we have set up something whereby information has passed back to the Scottish Youth Football Association to sometimes reunite those players with the clubs that they may have come from originally or any other club to hopefully not lose them to football. There was a significant issue around the fact that players in Club Academy Scotland were not allowed to play for their school teams. The rule has been changed such that they can play for their school teams, but it is still at the discretion of the Club Academy Scotland club. I would say, after having quite a number of discussions with various people involved in that, that generally clubs provide support in that area and many players who are Club Academy Scotland players do still play for their school teams. That gives you a broad overview of the number of areas in which we have made changes in the last couple of years. Thank you, chair, and thank you to Andrew for that helpful exposition of the changes that the SFA have made. We have also made changes. We have been working closely with the Scottish Football Association since the merger last summer. One of the areas where, last time when I was here in this room, there was concern was over the allegations that players were somehow being auctioned by young players and that clubs where interest was registered by another club, an acquiring club, were not passing on that information to the young players. The rules have been changed from this summer, which means that any club wishing to acquire the registration of an amateur young player registers that interest with us, the league, and we pass that interest on to the player and his parents. The player and his parents then have a choice as to what they do. They are in full possession of all the facts of any clubs that are interested in signing them. Indeed, if that process is followed, there is a prohibition on any inducement being offered either by the club wishing to acquire the player or his current club to offer any inducement to stay altogether. I bring in either William Smith or Scott Robertson just to perhaps throw their comments in. I think that I would like to say, convener, first and foremost, it is true to say that the Scottish Football Association has been more than helpful in sitting down with us and talking about issues. Sadly, I cannot say that about the Scottish professional football league. It has shown no interest, no enthusiasm to speak to us about any matter in relation to what is very serious issues under their control. We have attended, as Andrew rightly said, several meetings, some of which we are grateful for, were at the invitation of the Scottish Football Association and we have a good working relationship with them. I cannot say that that exists because we have never been invited. However, I do wish to take up the point insofar as this bartering with a 13 or a 14-year-old Mr Sinclair from Rangers Football Club, supported by Mr McCart from Celtic Football Club, stated in this room, as Mr Don Caster said, about the situation with regards to a young player who was being traded off between two professional football clubs to the highest bidder. I would ask anybody sitting round this table as a parent, how would you like your son to be in that situation? The rule, insofar as Mr Don Caster has just emphasised, is now in place that parents must be informed. It is four years since Mr Sinclair gave that evidence, supported by Mr McCart, and that is just been introduced this summer. That reflects the arrogance that is involved in that organisation, headed by Mr Don Caster. The clubs in that are only interested in getting whatever money they can out of a young potential player. That is all they are interested in. Some of them don't even have the facilities to potentially justify the claim for that money, and we are concerned about that incident in particular. I know that the committee has changed since the first meeting four years ago in January 2010, but the meeting at Mr Sinclair appeared at 2011 when he gave that evidence. It is important, convener, to mention that we wrote to Mr Don Caster after that meeting asking him to investigate the credibility of Mr Sinclair's evidence and Mr McCart's evidence. He refused to do so, stressing that there had been no breach of rules. Yet he wrote to one of our supporters who helped us with his petition, former MSP Trish Godman. He wrote, referring to the Oliver Bernard case, in which he outlined some points on it. What he didn't outline was that the European Court ruling in the Oliver Bernard case said that, no, only at the cost could we meet. We have profiteering in our game, and it is wrong. We are quite tight for time. We have quite a lot of questions, politicians are well used to making speeches, if I would ask perhaps witnesses are a bit shorter on their contributions, that would be useful. Mr Robertson, did you want to add anything briefly on the points that we were making? I'll be as brief as I can, convener. I'm glad to hear and I'm aware of the changes that the SFA has made. I've got a copy of the document. I don't quite understand if you have 16 kids on a training pitch and a coach or two coaches, how it's more expensive for Celtic to do it than it might be for Adronians, for example. We have a system where it's calculated for a star six rated club, it's £15,000 is the compensation level, but it's clearly less for a one star club. I don't get that part, maybe that can be answered at some point. I'm glad to hear that there's a rule brought in that stops clubs preventing kids from playing football. I wasn't aware of that. What I'm aware of, there's two cases that are running just now, and we can maybe come back and get an answer. There's a kid here that's been in touch with us, he hasn't been playing football since the 25th of June last year. This is a talented player, a player that was on professional books. He hasn't been able to play football because compensation has not been paid. I've got his player passport printed off in front of me, and that's fact. There's another lad, 21 November, that hasn't been registered or been playing football because clubs cannot agree on the levels of compensation. It seems to fly in the face, unfortunately, Andrew, from what you've said. I take a bit of issue with that. Finally, the exit strategy. Yes, the SFA now sent an email in spreadsheet form in Excel to the Scottish Youth FA. Last week, there were 19 players released, but the Scottish Youth FA don't know what to do with that list and sit on it so that information is not then sent to clubs, whether it's Mussel Barwinser or Hillwood Boys Club. If we're getting 19 players a week released from professional clubs, they're sitting in a database doing nothing because the Scottish Youth FA don't know under the Data Protection Act whether they can send me, John Smith, lives in Mussel Barwinser and plays right back. Here's his address and telephone number, so that is not the full answer. I see that, obviously, we're trying to get later stage, I think. Mr Murray, you were wishing to come in. Yes, I'd like to say regarding the every only and Celtic thing. I obviously don't understand the criteria around the Club Academy of Scotland. Celtic is one of the top academies in Britain, and it employs full-time scouts and coaches. It employs qualified coaches and very solid physiotherapists that cost money. Airbnb only does that same criteria, so there's a lot more money paid by Celtic than there is by hearts, and that's a fact. Celtic managers pay fortunes for their academies, a lot more than any other club, so the compensation is based around the level of the secrets there are, so Airbnb might have four teams, Celtic might have six teams plus development squads and development on the 20 teams, so a lot more people are involved in Celtic and Rangers than most clubs in Scotland and not Britain. Regarding the compensation, Mr Sinclair quoted, I think that the figure he gave you was actually wrong. I think that there's no reason for him to pay that money for any player in Scotland. There's a set figure, and I believe that the player went for that figure and not the figure he quoted. I know what Mr Sinclair said, and I was appalled at what he said at the meeting, but I can assure you that I would pay not one penny more than training compensation required on the legislation for any player in Scotland. We're not here as large, but that's my understanding of what the burner drooling is identifying, isn't it? I'm conscious that my other colleagues have questions, so I'll quickly go to my next question. I suppose that asking the very straightforward question is why is registration for young players required at all? What's the benefit of a young player being registered? One of the quotes that we got from the briefing for this meeting was that the Age of Legal Capacity Scotland in 1991 provides that a person under 16 years of age has no legal capacity, subject to exceptions, and generally contracts with minors are voidable. I don't know whether Mr McKinlay or Mr Don Castle wants to say anything on that. I'll take the second point about the age of legal capacity. One of the first meetings that I had with the real grassroots gentlemen at the point was made that anyone under 16 would be unlawful for them to enter into these agreements. They said that they had council's opinion to that effect, so I asked if they would share that with me and they did. I kindly shared Mr McGregor's opinion with me. It's unfortunate that he's not with us today, but I can assure you that his opinion does not say that it's unlawful. People of that age can enter into contracts with their parents that enter into them on their behalf, and if there's an issue around the parent entering into a contract that's not in the best interests of the child, then that issue is between the child and the parent, so they are not per se voidable. That's just my legal response to that. That's their own council's opinion. Thank you for that, Mr Don Castle. I'll take the first part of the question in terms of what's the point of a registration system. Well, it's a record of exactly where young players are, who they're training with, but primarily it also provides the basis for insurance for those players, and we ensure the clubs, and we ensure how the system insurance for the league and all of its member clubs, and of course that covers players within those clubs, so there are good legal reasons why there should be a system of registration. Thank you for that, Mr Murray. The form that our players sign is the same form that the boys club player sign is. It's exactly the same registration form, it's not a contract, so the forms that my players sign for heart are the same forms that most of our ones are signed, and the boys club sign is exactly the same form. So we can't do it, why can they do it? It's exactly the same form, which is registered legally by the SFA and the SPL, so I'd like to know what the difference between their forms and my forms. Okay, Mr Smith. I don't know what John Murray knows about boys club football, but it appears to me to be absolutely nothing. The fact is that there are no forms in boys club football where a child signs at 15 years of age for a one-year registration, and the club that he signs for my club, Hylwood Boys Club, do not have the right under SYFA rules to continue that player's registration against his wishes. That's the bottom line on that, Mr Murray. So as far as that is concerned, that is completely wrong. The simple fact is, why do we have to, and I would ask Mr Don Caster and Mr McKinnell to explain us, why does a 15-year-old child have to sign a registration document at that age when professional footballers are free of it through Bosman, when the Scottish Junior Football Association from this year has scrapped it, why is it that we target a 15-year-old child to continue his registration after he completes that? Thank you for allowing Mr Murray quickly. I could just say as well, I know there's quite strong feelings around this, but I just asked that we try and deal with each other with courtesy, it's quite useful. Yeah, Mr Murray? That's the same form you sign, and what we say, Bosman applies to players over 23, not 15-year-olds. So players are free in a Bosman over 20-year-olds, not under 23, so I'm not aware if you know about European rules or registration forms, but that is a fact. Players are free to go with 20-year-olds up, not under 23, and that is a fact. Thank you. Can I just bring in Mr Don Caster and Mr McKinnell about the point 3 by Mr Smith? Happy to endorse what John's response just was, that the Bosman ruling does apply to players over 23, the FIFA system of compensation for training effectively, which has been endorsed by the ECJ in the Barnard case, makes it clear that compensation for players below the age of 23 is entirely permissible when within European law. And just to follow on my initial question, but that is where the burden of drilling comes in, is it? So basically the compensation should reflect the costs by the club of the training. But absolutely, and what we've put in place is a system that aims to do exactly that. And depending upon the star rating of the academy from which the player comes. So just so I'm understood, because not everyone in this table will be experts on football, as you gentlemen know. So just so I'm fully understand this issue, the Barnard ruling states that there can be a compensation if a player leaves, which reflects the star rating of the facility. So Celtic, as we just heard, will have an expensive setup to reflect the size of the club that they are. So if a player from Celtic goes from one club to another, the other club must pay a compensation reflects the actual costs of training that player for Celtic. But there's no premium above that. Exactly, and what I've talked about in terms of the changes to our rules this summer effectively prevents any, I mean there's an allegation of auctioning of young players previously, our rules from this summer prevent that from happening because the player would be alerted by us to any interest in that player, and the compensation sums are set out very clearly in the rules. Binging John Wilson, before I bring in Ms McKinlay. John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Just on that point, I've got entered into evidence for days meeting a letter copied to Mr Smith from Vincent Loney from the Scottish FFA, and basically says that the SFA and SPFL have set tariffs. However, there is no penalty if any club decides to breach those tariffs. So do we have tariffs in place that are actually set for and taking on board Mr Murray's point about the six-star club versus one-star club? If these tariffs are in place, then if we have those tariffs, how can clubs continue to breach those tariffs without any penalties being applied to them? I'll take that first. The letter that's referred to is from my colleague Mr Loney, who's the compliance officer within the association. This was a matter referred to him in general terms. I think that it might have been a referral back to Mr Sinclair's evidence of several years ago that extra money was being paid. There is nothing in our rules specifically to say that extra money is paid as a breach of our rules because I actually don't understand how extra money can be paid under the new tariff system. We don't generally put in rules in place when it can't happen. Mr Donkaster will probably talk further about their new rules, which prevent them from—we have two sets of rule books, so that very much touches upon our rules, and I'm sure Mr Donkaster will speak to the SPFL rules. Mr Donkaster is exactly the same. Within the SPFL, the 42 clubs, any young player going from one club to another club within the 42 is covered by that system, which sets out exactly what the training compensation should be for each side of the club. If we take a scenario that a club with big pockets says, I really want to sign this young player who is aged 15, the host club will negotiate what the compensation is best on their costs. The compensation is set out very clearly in the rules as to exactly what is payable. The club, the big club with large pockets that he has described, he wishes to acquire that player, would write to us. We would then alert the player and his parents. He then has a choice as to whether he stays with his existing club or whether he goes at the end of that year to the new club. If he goes, then the compensation is set out in the rules. If the large club says to the parents that this is the compensation scheme, because that's laid down in the rules, but we wish to pay and make you another payment to reflect this, is that the command happened? That is prohibited by our rules, would be a breach of our rules, and it would be a disciplinary case that we would then bring if we had evidence of a breach. Has there been a breach of the rules to your knowledge, and what investigations have you carried out in the circumstances to make sure that the rules are being complied with? Because I have a suspicion. I'm not aware of any breach of our rules, and if anyone has any checked. Have you checked the payments in total that are made in the circumstances that have just been in terms of additional payments? Sorry, Mr Brody, I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting. If we have evidence of any breach of our rules, then we will investigate that. We have no such evidence before us whatsoever. We don't go on fishing expeditions to look for alleged breaches. If people have allegations of wrongdoing, if people have allegations of breaches of our rules, they should bring that evidence to us, and we will investigate. We've seen no such evidence. So you do not enforce any compliance, or do any auditing, or it's not fishing expedition? We're talking about young men and young girls as we'll be playing as part of the enjoy. So you do know, shall we call, your fishing expeditions to ensure that these rules are being complied with? I'm sorry, I don't follow. If people are alleging that rules have been breached, let's see what that allegation is. Let's see what the evidence is. I have no such evidence in front of me at all. Okay. Thank you, but could I just perhaps move on, because I don't know if I have questions from members of the committee. Why do registrations for those under 15 differ from players aged 14 and under? What's the 15-year-old barrier? What's that? Is that arbitrary? It comes from the clubs. We are a member's organisation, if our rules come from, obviously, the wishes of the clubs. It was very much viewed, a discussion several years ago, that that is seen as the crucial age for the development of the players when they reached that 15. Before that, the clubs are happy after one year that they can go on, but at that age, they feel that they've made a sufficient commitment and therefore they should be allowed to keep the player for those years. That's why there's a difference now. John might be able to add to that as well. What we're saying is that young players from 13 to 15 or 14 can through puberty, through growing pains, they have Osgoode slatters of various illnesses, and players, through that time deteriorate, their form goes off for a while. We think that at 15, most players can through their growth spurt and we can judge them better what their quality of ability is, so we'd like to make sure that the investment that we've put in there has kept longer up until 16 or 17. It's purely the fact that young ages, players go up and down like yo-yos, their quality goes up. We've had players in the club for one year who are injured with Osgoode slatters, so we protect that player and keep them for another year through injury. We think that at 15, we can better assess the quality of that player and try to keep her investment in that player going on a lot longer, and that's basically why it's done. So 15 is then arbitrary, effectively. It's not a particular rule, it's one that you've imposed or regulated. The comment was made that Bosman doesn't apply unless it's a player that's 23 years or older, and we understand that. What we're suggesting is the principle should also apply to young players. If and the registration form, Mr Murray's correct, the form is the same but the rules behind it, the front-facing form is the same, but the rules behind it are different. I'll give you a couple of examples. If a player signs in his 13, a registration form for a boys club, should he decide halfway through of for family reasons he wants to leave and move somewhere else, or just that's put upon him by the family moving, he can do so. 28 days he writes into the Scottish Youth FA. Now the same registration form, he cannot exit from aedronians or hybds or celtic. There is no such get-out clause if you like. If we move that up to a 15-year-old, and although I hear Andrew and he said he didn't say it was illegal, Malcolm McGregor said, the current regime is flawed. It imposes a contractual regime on young players and clubs, in which the former are placed in a clear and distinct disadvantage, in which they have no bargaining power and effectively no remedial rights. So if you're 15 and you sign a registration form and you complete that commitment for one year, the club and only the club can hold you for a second year. The player has no say in it whatsoever. He has no get-out clause. At the end of that second year, if the club wants to keep you for a third year, they have the power and the authority to do that. The player and the parent have no say in that, and there's a number of organisations. Whereas the Scottish Youth FFA, Malcolm McGregor for Compass Chambers, Bridge Litigation, FIFA Pro, retaining players after they've expressed a right to leave after a season is not acceptable, said FIFA Pro. This infringes fundamental rights. We heard the same from Tam Bailey, the Children's Commissioner. It was reflected in the FIFA disciplinary committee when they dealt with Barcelona. William Gibbons wrote in and expressed the same point. The Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish Child Law Centre, even Henry McLeish flagged up a duty of care that was absent. First of all, the reason why the players go to a lage band is that we have a number of players in each squad. When we get to 15 to go to 17, we reduce them out to players in the system, which I thought was what you were after in the first place. If we have a squad at 15, 16, 17, we, based on the 48 players in our system, or 54 players, will be going to the dual age, but we are going by the administration, where we have to amount to players in the club, so we go from 34 players to 22 players. We actually do what you are asking to reduce them out to players. We have a duty of care to all our players to say that the parent can't leave is wrong. I let a player go this week at 14 who moved to house, so that is up to the individual club. I would be appalled at the club keeping a player who moved to house. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but regarding your thinking about principles, we all have different principles. Clubs work with different principles. I certainly wouldn't keep a player who moved to house, and that's my individual club. I can't speak for those who are Celtic, but some of the points that you're making are completely wrong. I could bring Mr McGinley to perhaps look at the points that Mr Robertson has raised. Thank you very much. There were a few issues in there, and I'll try to pick up on some of them, but I might miss some. We're throwing around quite a few analogies and examples. I think we've got to be very careful when we do that, because a lot of them, as lawyers will know, turn very much in the facts and circumstances. Bosman has been thrown around a lot this morning. There is nothing in Bosman to prevent clubs from having one-way options to extend contracts. Bosman is about someone who comes to the end of their contract and has no contract whatsoever. The Barcelona case has just been thrown up. The Barcelona case is all about the movement of miners from South America to Spain. I think that we're getting ourselves a little bit excited if we look. FIFA has very clear rules on the movement of miners cross-border. That was to do with young boys who were brought from South America to Spain. I don't think that is an example that we should be using. Family reasons, John Murray has talked about them. Where there have been issues and clubs haven't maybe had the same principles as John has talked about. Again, there's been a couple of times when we've been asked to mediate, and generally we can find a situation where we can compromise. We are allowed to cancel a registration if it comes to that. We don't use that lightly, but in scenarios where it's obvious that the club is abusing its position, we have the authority to do that. That's very brief, because I'm getting a bit short of time. I referred to Mr Don Caster, the question from Mr Brody. Mr Don Caster said that there was absolutely no evidence in that case. That is the extract of evidence from Jim Sinkler, Mr Don Caster, that you sat and listened to, where a child was traded off against two clubs. Obviously, for the official record, that can't be picked up. Is it possible that you could give us a copy of that information so that we could then... When you have it in the official, that was Jim Sinkler's evidence for this petitions committee. Mr Don Caster was there. He got that evidence. He declared to Mr Brody that he didn't have any evidence to investigate. We wrote to him and provided him again with all the evidence that he refused to investigate. We passed it on in an official complaint form to Vincent Lonnie, the compliance chart from the SFA. Mr Lonnie came back to his right and said, I can't speak. We asked him to interview Mr Don Caster about Mr Sinkler's evidence. He refused to do it. We asked him to interview Jimmy Sinkler for Rangers FC. He refused to do that as well. It shows the lack of co-operation that we've had in that context. I find myself at a loss to understand what this campaign is aiming to achieve. If there is an allegation that rules have been breached, let's understand what rule we think has been breached. Let's see some evidence because we are not aware of any evidence of any rule having been breached. We are concerned about what was put in front of us when we were here last time in terms of the allegations about auctioning young players. As I've already explained this morning, we have put in place a system that ensures that there should be no incentive for that to happen. We will alert any player if there is any interest from him by a club seeking to acquire his registration. If there is an allegation that a rule has been breached in the past, let's see the evidence of that and let's understand what rule we think has been breached. I would like to try to... What the figure was at Rangers Celtic paid for that player because I am aware that the figure that they paid was not the figure that was spoken at this meeting and there is no need for anyone to pay over the figure that was asked for. Can I just say that we've got quite a lot of other questions and rather we keep to the broader principles rather than individual players because it gets... Then what happens is that we miss some of the major points and we have to move on. Mr Brodyts, your question. One thing is always concerning me, in particular given the state of Scottish football, why we have still two organisations running our sport. How are we sure you that you're applying the regulations in the same way? Mr John Custer? Virtually, I think there's... There may be one other country in Europe, one country in Europe where you have a unitary set-up of a league and FA working together. Other than that one country, I'm not aware of any other country in Europe that operates that unitary system. Can I understand Scotland? Well, Scotland matches the situation in the vast majority of countries around Europe where you have one league or two leagues and then a governing body and that separation is very much the case elsewhere in Europe. Our role as a league is to run a fair competition for the 42 members, the professional clubs, and largely to commercialise that and to run the competition for those members. We work hand in hand with the governing body who live down the corridor from us at Hamden. We cooperate on a daily basis. I see Andrew and his colleagues daily. There is a good level of cooperation and in fact we're working together, given the separate rule books that we have, to ensure that where there is overlap, where there is a rules touching with the same things, we are very clear about who takes priority on each of them. So there is an extremely good working relationship and where there are issues that arise that are brought to us, we work with the SFA to look at them. The suggestions that we're not listening, we don't care, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not suggesting you don't listen, don't care, but you've just said that the process is overlap. You walk up and down the corridor talking to each other about, and this is a very serious issue as far as I'm concerned. It's almost reading this as like reading a Dickensian novel in some cases. Why do we need, particularly when we're looking at youngsters that are trying to foster them for the good of football, why do we need two bodies to oversee the compliance and the registration? Well, there is a single system that's been agreed with the 42 clubs and with the Scottish FA that's now in place, that deals with compensation based on star rating of academies. So there's one system. Okay, let me just move on to another vote. Can you tell me, Mr McKinlay, in terms of the public funds that are distributed by the SFA, what's the audit process on that? That's probably not my area of remit, Mr Brody, I must admit. If you can do now, I'm happy to take you out for your right end, but it seems that there's a fair amount of public funds going through Sports Scotland to foster young footballers. I don't see any evidence of what the audit process is, where the money goes, how do you follow the money? What I would say is, having read the evidence from, I think, 2010 when Mr Doncaster and Mr Regan and I think the minister, Mr Robinson, gave evidence to this committee, that was explored in depth and they talked about that whole audit process in Sports Scotland do come in and audit it. I just don't want to pretend that I'm an expert in that area and trying not to mislead you in any way, but I do think that this committee went over that in depth and that was explained in depth to the committee previously. In terms of the registration, to what extent can a registration be considered, and that obviously depends on the frame of reference of the solicitors that you're discussing with me. Do what extent can a registration be considered a contract between the club and the player's parents? Football works in it as two separate things. It has a registration form and it has a player contract, and the people we're talking about here do not enter into football player contracts, they enter into registration forms. I think again that this was rehearsed quite a lot in 2010, that we can get into legal semantics about what is and what isn't a contract. Certainly football's view is that these are registration forms, they are signed by the child and their parent, but they do not sign what football view is as a football contract. Those are for professional players. Mr Donkazer, do you want to comment? I think that I can add to that. That's just a couple of very brief questions. To what extent are the obligations placed on young players? Is there a barrier for them to move to other clubs? Particularly in situations, let's say, as we've just heard about someone who's moving away from the local area. Why, in those circumstances, given that we're trying to encourage youngsters to enjoy, not be a means of speculation, what extent do you think the obligations are placed on a young player in terms of that barrier? Mr Murray touched upon the fact that there are many clubs that don't put that up as a barrier, so even in the middle of the year, if a family moves, then they often will let them go. It's not in the club's best interest to hold on to a player that doesn't want to be there. As I said earlier in response to another question, where there have been issues, less than a handful in my two years in the association have been brought to me around this matter. I think that only one has been brought to me where a club has refused to let a player go. We have become involved and we've managed to get to a situation in which reaching an amicable compromise in the player has been released. It's not something that's been brought to my attention on a daily basis that this is happening all the time. If it was, I would be horrified. You have no evidence. It's not what's been brought to my attention. When parents come in to sign the registration form, they are explained with the training compensation. They are explained what happens at the end of the season. They are given reviews during the season about their performance. Every player at the end of the year can leave and go to a boys' club or go anywhere they want. If a club comes to them, no player is unhappy unless someone comes for them. Ninety-nine per cent of players are signed for clubs are happy until there may be a bigger club come for them. The training companies are there, but we have a lot of players at the end of the year. We let them be players. Two players go per age group, for our own sake, and some of the boys go to another senior club or go back to boys' club. There are very few players who leave things in football and don't play football. They either go to a smaller club in the club academy Scotland or back to a boys' club. So the idea that the players are lost to the game is absolute nonsense. These boys are going to find a level to play at every year. I'll hear what you say, Mr Mike. We were all doing the best for the youngsters, and then I heard earlier that in some cases they may not be allowed to play for the schools. So what we have to recognise, and what I read into this, is who we're talking about, speculating about young men and young women wanting to play the game that they wish. That's what it's about. It's not about anything other than pure business speculation and using young people and limiting their ability to do the thing that they enjoy most. For example, saying that you can't play school football is an absolute nonsense. Mr McKinlay. I have a point. I said earlier that clubs generally release players to play for their school teams. Again, there was a lot of discussion about this when it last came before this committee that there are boys who have played five, six, seven times a week and John will be able to give more information on this for their club academy Scotland. I don't think that we want to burn out young people either. I think that we've got to be very careful with this. I'm conscious of the time, so I need to move on to John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Once again, the issue about registration and the procedures around whether or not someone would challenge the registration process and whether or not, Mr McKinlay, you made reference to one challenge that you were aware of in the last two years. It's just so that we can be clear if parents and guardians and the young players themselves are aware of the procedures if they want to challenge the registration process and how they would go about that and who would hear that challenge, what body is responsible for hearing the challenge? If it's our registration rules, which is most likely to be generally what happens in the first instance is that the parents where there's an issue have spoken to one of the members of staff who heads up the whole club academy Scotland regime and in many cases he's able to sort things out before it actually gets into an argument over our regulations. If there's evidence to show or a belief that there's evidence to show that the regulations have been breached, then that should be sent into either myself, to the chief executive. In either case, we would pass the matter to the compliance officer who would consider whether there had been a breach of the regulations and if there had been a breach of the regulations would then take the appropriate action against the club. I think that Mr Smith wants to come in. Just to enlighten you, there's only been a handful of cases. As you started with the SFA and so far as disputes were concerned, we've already had a case that was almost going to court until a professional football club withdrew from holding the player on compensation and let him go for nothing. We are currently waiting on word from the legal aid board on behalf of another player to take a club to court over refusal to release him from his contract, so to suggest that there's only been a couple. We've got another one pending, so it's obviously more relevant, Andrew, than you have knowledge of. A quick warning, obviously. We have to be careful that we're talking about any on-going legal cases, so I appreciate if members don't mention the name of the case. Mr McKinley? I can only speak to ones that are brought to my attention, obviously. Just to, while I don't want to go into the individual detail of the court cases involved, I'd be useful if Mr Smith could have given an indication why it was felt necessary to go to the courts, rather than go through the procedure that Mr McKinley's indicated and that's to go through the compliance officer and deal with it in that way, rather than go into the expense of going to courts. The facts are, in both instances, the parents exhausted the opportunities with the clubs first. There was no knowledge at parent level of what is available in so far as the next form of approach. Other than Andrew Bryson, the registration secretary was contacted in both cases and said, that's the rule, that's it, he's registered the conclaim compensation form and those parents have letters to that effect. I can respond to the point that the difference being is that these are probably not where there's a breach of rules, this is where someone actually feels they have to go to court because their belief is that our rules are somehow actually unlawful. It is a question of going to court because it is the only way we will get this issue resolved other than this Parliament is by going to court, so there's a ruling made on the 15-year-old contract where a club can hold someone against the wishes for two years, that's what's going to court. In the last 18 years at heart I've tried to sign a player for a boys club, I've met a lot of aggravation trying to get that done. If some boys club refused to release the player's registration, so we could come to Hardam at Lowlands Football Club as of other clubs, so it's not a one-way circle here, I've had players who leave boys clubs, I want to sign them and they're going to register the form, I'm still signed by the boys club. Up until recently boys club registrations continued on for years, I can check a player in the SFI website who might be signed with the boys club 18 months ago, hopefully that has changed now, but I would sit in Edinburgh where I would people refuse to release a player to come to Hearts. I perhaps bring in Mr Macdonald because I think his question will touch on this spell. Angus Macdonald? I'm just picking up on a point that's already made regarding registration. Andrew McKinlay mentioned earlier that parents are closely involved in the registration process and Scott Robertson claimed this morning that there's no get-out clause which we heard was challenged by John Murray, so picking up on the points raised by my colleagues Chick Brody and John Wilson, can you tell us what advice our young players and their parents are guardians given at the time that registration is being contemplated and what's done to make sure that both the player and the parents are guardians understand the implications involved? It's probably different from club to club and John will be able to speak to Hearts. From my perspective there is a form which is signed by, it's not a long form, it's just over a page long, in fact I think you can now get it on one side of A4. There are five clauses in it and each of those clauses is signed by player, the parent and the club and they go through each of those. It's not written in complicated legalistic language. I'm not saying though that in the particular heat of the moment that someone might just say yes, I'll sign it and off they go. I'm not trying to pretend that that might not happen but I suspect that there will be different practices from club to club but it's certainly made, intentionally made as simple as possible. We signed a form with the SPL and the SFR, the SPFL and the parent sign of documentation. There's also a club code of conduct and a player parent code of conduct. It is quite intense registration process and the players are given a documentation explaining the sign for one year or it stays on the registration form, it's a three-year registration and that's explained to all the parents, certainly my club and I believe most clubs. I think that's a duty we have to the players and the parents that know exactly what they're signing. There's a documentation, do you have a one-to-one with the parents or guardians? Every player signed at Hearts football club is signed with a guardian or care or a parent there and that forms are explained to them. We go through a process with each individual parent, yes. In some cases we bring them in as a squad and we fill the forms up to read all the forms before they sign them. It was a move in the right direction that the parent had to sign in five different places and perhaps an indication of the poor practice that was going on that required them to bring in a form that they had to sign five times a registration. That's not something you do in youth football. I just bring this to a sort of boiling point. Mr Doncaster, what do we want? Yes, compensation is allowed by FIFA. Myself and Willie perhaps argue that maybe compensation should be paid to a training club once a player turns professional, not while they're 12 and 13. The other thing we want and I would ask the members of the committee here, do you think it is fair? Do you think it is reasonable? Would you allow your child, putting the child at the centre of this, if at 15 you sign a one-year registration and then the club and only the club has the power to keep your son or daughter for a further three years without them having a say in it? There is no get-out clause. That's the two burning issues for us. Can I perhaps ask very quickly Mr McKinley and Mr Doncaster to give a couple of comments to Mr Orbson's point? I think that we've covered them to be honest with you. I'll just sum it up on the compensation one. We feel that we have come up with something now which is much fairer, is much clearer and is properly based on a proper reimbursement of training costs, which as I said earlier is something that we have a mandatory requirement to put in place from FIFA in relation to the second point. I think that John has explained earlier on well the reason why 15 was seen as an important age. You are right that there is no get-out clause however in practice, as I think we've talked about several times this morning, in practice where players have looked to get out. That has often happened. Mr Doncaster? I agree with that. I think that we've ended up with what is now a very fair and balanced system which understands and reflects the interests of young players as well as it does the clubs. It's imperative that we retain a real incentive for clubs to continue to want to expend huge amounts of money on training young players and we need to be very cautious about doing anything that is going to remove that incentive. If we end up in a situation in which we have the freedom that perhaps some are looking for but clubs don't want to train any players anymore, I do not believe that that would serve Scottish football or Scotland in any way. I get a very quick point from Angus MacDonald. We heard earlier an allegation that young players are not playing because clubs can't agree on compensation. What do you say to that? Oh, nothing to agree. There's a clear matrix which gives the amount whether or not a club wishes to pay that amount for a player. It's entirely up to that club. It just seems crazy to have if there are players sitting idle for one of a better word. That's why often agreement is reached that no compensation is paid or a lesser amount is taken by the other club but there is an amount set based on reimbursement of training costs for the clubs that have spent a lot of money. I don't know anyone who would want their sons to go there to achieve something better. I think that they're going from grass roots football to senior clubs, which I think is an incentive for players to go and improve with better coaching, qualified coaches and a better structure. I don't know any parent who wouldn't want that for any of their children and I can assure you that up to 14 any kid can walk with a club anytime they want and I've not seen any instance where you come up with these statements about certain things. You have 3,500 players playing and we have to pick from that the cream of the crop and that is the job. You use grass roots football. I have teams in Edinburgh who have three and four teams of the same age group all paying money per week to play football. Every club in Scotland in the 42 do everything free of charge for the players. Everything is done for these players regarding their health, their nutrition, their football training and everything else. I'll bring in Mr Prout. I'll wait to date because I've got to get to a couple of other questions. Mr Torrance. It may not be answered but anybody could add anything additional. Under the new compensation schemes, what are the positive but also the negative aspects for young players? We recognise that cobs should be entitled to compensation at some stage, but only when the player signs a professional contract. We forget that some of the greatest players that ever played football for this country, unfortunately, have not come through the pro-youth system or Academy Scotland when you look at the sunnyses and the dalglishes and the rest of them. Where are they now? Where are they? Compensation for those players was not in place and was not necessary other than an official transfer for the professional clubs after they graduated through the boys club system, which is far, far has proved in the past to be far superior than the pro-youth system in terms of turning out the highest quality of players. Going back 30 or 40 years is perhaps not particularly relevant to today's environment. I believe that we have a very fair balance system in place. I believe that the interests of young players are properly protected and where there is any suggestion of wrongdoing or breaches of rules, those suggestions are taken very seriously and we have a good track record of pursuing breaches by our member clubs. I think that that was a totally relevant argument to say that. I can't believe him with that statement. I remember years ago when people thought the world was square and it wasn't round. It made coal fires, now it's central heating, things have changed, things evolve and footballs evolve and I think that argument is totally, totally unbelievable. I must admit that. I'm a target, that's the question I need. Thank you, convener, and you've probably been asked this question today and answered it today, but you're getting it asked again, just to drill down on it ever so slightly more. In what respect does the new scheme offer improvement? It offers improvement because it's far clearer and it's properly tied in to the amount that clubs have actually spent. We have this obligation to put in place something that does properly reimburse clubs and we believe that every club will spend a different amount, so we don't want a system where you go down to it's different for absolutely every club. We want something that's workable, but we feel that we've reached a good balance here that something that shows you the higher up you are, the more you've spent and that's why we feel it's a fairer system. Particularly in the smaller clubs, to what extent does the compensation scheme support youth development? I think again, they're still reimbursed for the money that they put into it. John probably will give you more on this, but clubs find their own levels and they're happy to work at their own levels. Some of them aspire to go up. We audit every year in relation to our club academy Scotland star ratings and you do find, as you'd expect, some clubs wish to go up the star rating, so that option is there for clubs. In terms of the investment in some of the public funding and the speculation that goes on, how do you measure the outcomes and the success of this new process, given the current state of Scottish football in terms of attendances and general success? How do you measure the outcomes? Mr McKinley? I'll try not to ramble on too much about this. A couple of years ago, when the chief executive Stuart Regan came to the Scottish Football Association, there was a lot of work done around bringing in place a new performance strategy. We have Club Academy Scotland, we also have performance schools, we have various other things which hopefully, and it was called a 2020 vision for obvious reasons, we may not know until 2020 whether or not we have been successful in that. However, what I would say, and it is very current, is we are seeing some good signs of things happening. For the first time in a long time, we won the victory shield at schoolboy level last year. We have just this last week had an under 17 teams in the finals in Malta, who got to the semi-finals of the European tournament, first time ever at that age level. I am very hopeful that we are seeing things, but I am Scottish. It is the hope that kills us. Let us hope that those things do come through in time, and you will only be able to measure them in hindsight. That is a difficult one. Mr Murray? I understand that the Scottish national team is on the basis of the club system, but I think that the main job that I have at the moment is to develop players for Heart's football club. However, we have got loads of players as do all other clubs around Scotland playing for lower leagues teams. At Lowland Leagues First Division, every league in Scotland has hearts of players playing in. We also have players playing for boys clubs, and our aim is hearts to get players into heart developing the good players to move on to a higher level, to achieve better standards for Scottish players. However, it is a fact that 99.99 per cent of players in the national teams come to the top, probably 12 teams in Scotland, who invest the money because they want the best players, and that is the same anywhere in the world. We are nowhere different than anyone. So we are measuring out on the financial benefits and not any other benefits? No, I am looking at players who develop to go on to achieve better things. You have just said the thought about the money. No, I said that the top 12 teams produce the players. No, the money is not there. The moment we pay money out to develop players, boys clubs get money and free parents to the grasslands football, they are self-financed. The clubs play a lot of money to develop players for hearts and for Scotland. I would like to ask Mr Robertson and Mr Smith to have a very quick comment. If you can keep it under a minute, Mr Robertson, that would be very good for you. I will. I just wanted to come quickly back to Mr Don Caster, who said that the 15-year-old that can then be held captive for the three years, the clubs feel it is important, the clubs want that, the clubs feel it is the right age to identify in which to put that mechanism in. This is not what is best for the clubs. This is not why we are sitting here today. It is what is best for a 15-year-old boy, not a football club, but a business. It is what is best for the player. The player has to be at the centre of the decision making process, not the club. Mr Smith, I made a final comment there earlier on. My last comment on what has been produced for the money that has been invested that Mr Brodie was going on about earlier. Thank goodness that the Scottish team in terms of the pool has now something like about 12 players in it between 10 and 12 players selected who were born in another country, play in another country. That tells me, Mr Murray, that the system is failing the country because you are not producing the players for it. Thank you. I will put a very last word to Mr McKinlay and Mr Don Custer. Obviously, we are here. There is a wider issue here, but I will remind people that we are talking about the merits of the petition and our job is obviously to look at how we can take the petition to the end's degree. That is the job that our committee has done. Mr McKinlay? Just very briefly, I think that, in fact, the answer to your first question, Mr Chairman, was the steps that we have made in the past two years. We have made a good number of changes. I think that there will always be some rules that my friends do not like. Until we change them then, I am sure that they will not be happy, and they will continue with that pursuit. I understand that. That is a final word from Mr Don Custer. Thank you. I feel that the Scottish Football has made a number of very positive changes over recent years. I do believe that the system that we have now is a very fair system that looks after and protects the interests of players and where issues have arisen and where concerns have been expressed. We have addressed them proactively in partnership with the Scottish FA. I finally thank all our witnesses for attending today. I know that there are some difficult issues and there have been some fairly fierce words about it, but at the end of the day I think that we are all interested in football and we are all interested in young players and I think that what this committee will do now is go away and consider the evidence and at a later date we will look at the next steps for this petition if the committee agrees on that. I finally thank each and every witness today for coming along. I have really appreciated all your comments and I will suspend for three minutes to allow our witnesses to leave. Thank you very much. Colleagues, if you can restart our committee, we are on agenda item 2 consideration of new petitions. The next item is PE1515 by Mike Napier on asylum in Scotland to Glasgow University rector Edward Snowden. Members have a note by the clerk, the spice briefing of the petition. Could I welcome the petitioner, Mr Napier? You are very grateful for coming along with Napier. I appreciate your time. I can invite you to make a short presentation of around five minutes that will be followed by questions from myself and my colleagues. Mr Napier. Five minutes is obviously very short to deal with a topic as vast as the government harvesting every single keystroke from everyone's computer and every single email, every single text message, every single search and millions and millions of webcam images. Let me try. Edward Snowden was elected by an unprecedented number of Glasgow University students. By electing him as rector, they are making a statement against saturation surveillance by the national security agency in the USA and the information in the public domain which Edward Snowden has placed there, which is massively uncontested. The interpretation of it may be contested, but the information that he has put in the public domain of saturation surveillance by the American and British Governments of every single citizen is uncontested and we owe him a huge debt. The aim of this petition is to ask the Scottish Government to offer Edward Snowden asylum in Scotland now conditional upon a yes vote on September 18. Whether the people around this table are in favour of a yes vote or no on September 18, all can support the notion that a whistleblower, like Edward Snowden, to whom we owe a great debt, should be offered political asylum. He is in Russia at the moment. When the Americans cancelled his passport, when he was trying to get to South America, he was locked up for 39 days in the stateless person room at Sheremitievo airport during which time he applied to 21 countries for political asylum. US pressure prevented any of them from exceeding to his request. He says that he will take political asylum in any country that respects free communications and freedom of the press. The fact that he is in Russia is now being spun to suggest that there is something untoward about his situation in Russia. I am really reminded of the old, I think it was, Yiddish story of the man who murdered both his parents and then asked for clemency from the court on the grounds that he was an orphan. The Americans are now saying that because he is banged up in Russia, there is something untoward about his relationship with Russia, but he is striving with might and man to exit Russia and get to some other country that will offer him asylum. I do not have time to go through the whole thing, but in question time I can look at the various different programmes that Edward Snowden has put in the public domain which shows that you are being surveyed almost every second of your working life through harvesting that data. He is a fugitive. He is trying to get here. We owe him a debt of gratitude. I think that the final point that I would like to make in five minutes and 300 seconds is that whistleblowers are people who deserve our support, not just people like Edward Snowden who reveal something that is of great importance to all of us and it may be that he is right that every single child born today will never have any private life, but whistleblowers in the NHS and only last month Dr Rajmatu was vindicated after many years of being suspended for pointing out that patients were dying unnecessarily because of cuts. Jimmy Savill, as we know, committed horrific offences over many, many years, even decades, while the talk in the BBC canteen was quite often what the devil is somebody going to do about him. So whistleblowers need support and if whistleblowers don't get support, those who are potential whistleblowers in revealing illegality, misdemeanor atrocities and so on are intimidated. I think that many people would suggest that there is a democratic deficit in our society. Whistleblowers play a part in mending that particular gap. I hope that I haven't overshot my five minutes by too much. Edward Snowden has revealed information to us that we would not otherwise know. It is of significance to every single citizen in Scotland. He acted out of the purest of motives and an offer of asylum to the man by an independent Scottish Government, an offer made today conditional upon an outcome in September. Would itself be news and would allow the members of this committee to strike a blow for a private life for all of us? Thank you very much, Mr Napier, for the depth of your comments and keeping them within time. Perhaps, just from personal view, you should congratulate Glasgow University for electing Edward Snowden as a rector in obscenity. I think that the other track record of that was Winnie Mandela, if I may be certainly correct as well. I think that that was an excellent result. Of course, I have a couple of questions. I was not going to ask that, but your comments have triggered a comment in my mind. You were suggesting that the NSA would have been spying on Scottish citizens as well. Is there any evidence in Mr Snowden's information that that was actually the case, that American agencies were spying on Scottish citizens? There are—he's revealed many programmes at five in all—five significant ones. They can spy on any individual anywhere in the world, as long as they have an email address. One programme, Tempora, collects all emails, texts, browsing histories, passwords, webcam pictures and even a Facebook post that you decide to recall and not to send. They are actually harvested, so it's not just what you send that's harvested, it's what you might even think about sending. The German Justice Minister and the Germans have experience of the stasi opening a lot of letters called the GCHQ's harvesting of emails in this country at nightmarish. Edward Snowden has gone on record as saying that the GCHQ—I can't remember the adjective—is much worse than the NA. I think he used the adjective vicious, is much worse than the national security agency in the USA and its approach to harvesting information from citizens who are not even suspected of any wrongdoing. Perhaps it may be an argument for another day on this one, but I was interested in the comment that she made. Just a couple of practical points. I think that you've partly answered this. Clearly the UK currently has a duty and a role over asylum. You were saying that America persuaded a lot of its allies not to allow asylum. I take it that there's been an official answer from the UK Government that they will not grant asylum to Mr Snowden. I hope it won't come as a great surprise that of the 21 countries that Edward Snowden applied for asylum to, I have no record that he even thought of the UK, given the way in which Mr Cameron is in bed with Mr Obama. So he didn't even think of applying. He thought it was a lost cause. I think Scotland would be seen as quite different. I won't get pedantic with you, but clearly if we're in the current arrangements, if the UK granted asylum, that could be within Scotland since we're still part of the UK, but I was just wanting on the record whether there was a decision by the current UK Government on asylum or not. As far as I know none, he would not think that coming to the UK under the present Government would be a safe haven. Thank you. My final point is for bringing my colleagues in. You'll be well aware with your background that if there was a yes vote that asylum would remain reserved until March 2016, and thereafter it would be a competence for a yes vote for the new Scottish Government to make a decision on asylum or not. Have you had any indication from the current Scottish Government that there is likely to be favourable to Mr Stone's application for asylum in the event of a yes vote? Correspondence was very unsatisfactory. The reply was that we will deal with each application on a case-by-case basis in the future. I don't think that it's appropriate to say that we'll deal with Edwards Nodin on a case-by-case basis. We all owe him a favour. I'm very disappointed in the response of the Scottish Government to the correspondence. Thank you, Mr Nipper. I'll bring in my colleagues in. I think that I can and wish to get in. Good morning. I was more in question of the fact that it's not really the details of it. If he gets asylum and we are independent, surely the Americans could still put a petition into extraditeum, and that would cost a lot of time and money. He wouldn't get away with it, would he? That would be my worry, or the worry more from the point of view that he would be extradited from Scotland to the United States. The first of all has to be a crime. Glen Greenwald and the team of journalists who have been releasing his information into the public domain have just been awarded the Pulitzer Prize. It's very clear that he's a whistleblower, that no crime has been committed, that no foreign state is involved, and if the Americans wish to extradite someone, they have to specify a crime. No crime has been committed. Thank you, Edwards Nodin, should be the appropriate response, not a jail sentence. We've got the example of the Westminster bankers who've been extradited from the UK to America with long jail terms. America doesn't have a very good record of this sort of thing, of whether they're committed to crime or not, under our extradition treaty. They could extradite him in spurious grounds, could they not? I would be worried that this could come up. It would cost us a lot of money, or cost us a lot of time and money. The last, another individual who was elected rector by Glasgow University students in 2004, was an Israeli whistleblower called Mordechai Van Unw. He was lured to Rome and then kidnapped, injected and taken in a speedboat to Israel and suffered 20 years in prison, including 12 in solitary confinement. He's still detained in Israel and not allowed to leave. So yes, there's always a possibility of kidnap, there's always a possibility of extradition, but I think given that Edwards Nodin would like to leave Russia, would like to come to a country with a free press and free communications, it would be an honour, I think, for Scotland, for him to come here. He's a planetary figure. Most Americans consider him a whistleblower rather than a traitor. I think the discourse that treats him as a criminal is a minority discourse and I would ask this committee to act on the basis that we owe him a huge debt of gratitude for bringing into the public domain this uncontested information about saturation surveillance of all of you, as well as myself and everyone in the room. I think what Mr Snowden did was brave. I tend to look at somebody also like Michael Moore, who I'm not the former Scottish Secretary, but the American writer who has indicated many of the actions of the United States, and of course it's not just the United States, we've had the news this morning of China versus the United States in terms of leakage of information or seeking of information. My problem with this is how do we change, how would we change this surveillance, which of course we know goes on, and as you rightly pointed out of each and every one of us, which is wholly unacceptable. I just don't know why offering Mr Snowden an asylum here how we're going to change that ethos because it will still go on. I sympathise with his case. I think that he certainly has done a lot of people favours by declaring the information, but I just wonder if offering him an asylum here is not going to change anything, is it, in terms of the problem that we currently face in terms of not having open Governments or leaders who are unable to open their Governments? One could have said the same thing about any other major world issue in the past, slavery, women not having a vote and so on, that a single action would not solve the problem. No-one suggests that it does, but I can go back to the previous question about illegality. The American President's own body, the Civil Liberties Oversight Board, found that these programmes were illegal, so the burden of proof to escape from criminal accusations is not on Edward Snowden but on those running the programmes. In terms of Edward Snowden being here, I think that we need a discussion, we need a conversation. Snowden went on record a couple of weeks ago saying that at least the worst thing that he feared hadn't happened, i.e. that his revelations would be ignored, that there has been a worldwide discussion about this issue. It is in the public domain. The higher up the agenda it can be pushed, the better for all of us. There's no magic bullet, there's serious problems of technology here that every single stroke of your keyboard can be harvested. This was not possible in the past. When I watched spy movies as a kid, the fact that letters were opened between the post office and one's address was seen as ominous and dark, now every single keyboard can be harvested. So there are fundamental problems, there's no magic bullet, but at the very least we need a declaration of principle. The First Minister has made a declaration of principle that such intrusion is unacceptable and ominous. You've done the same thing, Mr Brody. We need more and more of that, we need a tsunami of opposition to this and maybe a solution is going to open up, but allowing it to be swept under the carpet and GCHQ has issued a DA notice, some of you will know more about this than I do, to the BBC advising them very strongly. I think it's like a policeman asking you to pull over, not to run stories on one of these surveillance activities and British involvement in it. So we are already being prevented from accessing information. The BBC is colluding in this, so of course are Microsoft, Google, Skype and Yahoo and so on. They've been very docile, obedient in terms of the NSA in supplying all this information. It's a gigantic problem and there's no single solution, but it would be a declaration of principle and in politics I think you understand better than I, symbols are very important and an offer of asylum to Edward Snowden now would be news. His election as rector of Glasgow University was reported, and I think about 200 newspapers and TV stations worldwide across the USA. These acts are significant and I would ask the committee to take that action. I commend Philip Snowden for the act that he carried out and actually releasing the information and that he welcomed this petition before the committee. One of these individuals may have been decried as a conspiracy theorist in relation to what's going on in the world and what various Governments are doing, but clearly what Philip Snowden highlighted was not just sorry, Edward Snowden, it's Philip Los Angeles, I think about it. The situation in relation to NSA but also in terms of the involvement of GCHQ and the free exchange of information between the British Security Forces and the NSA, particularly when many people don't realise that the US Government runs a listening post in England that's ostensibly run from an RAF base but it's almost predominantly staffed by American personnel linked to GCHQ listening and monitoring and surveying potentially every citizen in this country as well as Europe. There is an issue that we have to highlight, as you have said, Mr Napier, about every keystroke, every communication, whether that be by email or verbal communication on the telephone or mobile phone or any exchange, could be being listened into and being monitored by security services. I think it's good to highlight that situation so people are aware that the wrong people are actually being prosecuted and persecuted for the actions that they took. However, I do have some concerns about the validity of the petition at the present moment because my concern, convener, is that under the present treaty arrangement that the UK Government has signed up to with America, then if Mr Snowden was to come into UK soil, then he would be extradited—I think that Cameron Buchanan highlighted that—under the existing extradition treaty that exists. I think that there is a wider debate depending on what happens on the 19th of September this year about whether or not an independent Scotland would honour that treaty agreement with the USA because I think that we've got to go into that debate before we commit ourselves to giving sanctuary to anyone who seeks that support to come to Scotland because I think that there are discussions that have to take place. I would suggest, convener, and I respectfully ask Mr Maypere to comment. Do you think that it would not be appropriate to hold off with this petition until we get the result of the referendum in the 19th of September so that we could then take forward the petition to get a reasoned response from the Scottish Government based on what we can deliver rather than false hope to Mr Snowden? Before I bring Mr Maypere in just for information, John Wilson raises a very good point. I had to look at the white paper last night in page 260. It says—I summarised it— that an independent Scotland will obtain the current arrangements for extradition, so I think that that possibly answers Mr Wilson's point. That's been quite clear in the white paper and that is obviously the Bible in whatever way you view that in terms of what will happen if Scotland was independent. I think that point has been answered, but I certainly welcome Mr Maypere's view on what would you want this committee to do because you are the expert on your petition. First of all, I think that it's nice to have an offer. It doesn't mean that it's your force to take it up. The offer of asylum to Edward Snowden would be the significant part of this. He would obviously have to evaluate the risk of—sadly, we live in an age where we know about rendition and people have been snatched and sent off for torture in countries that I've worked in. The record is pretty appalling in terms of people being kidnapped and tortured, so anyone accepting an offer of asylum would have to evaluate the risks. However, the offer itself would be a declaration of principle and would be a way of saying to someone that we oppose the harvesting of every keystroke. Can I just add one important thing that I didn't have a chance to say in my opening remarks? I had an opportunity to spend some time that one doesn't often have with a 27-year veteran of the CIA who used to give daily briefings to a man called Ronald Reagan. He sometimes found him awake, but he gave him daily briefings on intelligence. He's a very significant figure in the CIA called Rayma Governe. When I spoke to Rayma Governe, he said, look, this thing is being sold on the basis of fear that it's a price you have to pay. It's a price you pay for protection against terrorism, blankets avail and saturation coverage. He said it's complete nonsense. The official American government bodies have come up with a figure for the number of terrorist attacks prevented by these saturation surveillance programmes. I'm not very good at statistics, but I can remember the number zero. In fact, the biggest prize they could brandish in 2007 was that a Somali taxi driver in America was transferring $8,500 to Somalia. God knows what it was for. It could have increased family, but that was the trophy that cost billions of pounds in saturation. An insider from the CIA, from the upper echelons of the CIA, is going public to say that the price that we have been asked to pay is a price that gives us no protection whatsoever. Just before I bring Mr Brodyn, I don't think that it would be useful for the committee to get a strong steer from yourself on the next steps. I think that Mr Wilson is suggesting. I mean, one option is that we could defer consideration after the referendum for obvious reasons. Obviously, another one is that we ride now to the Scottish Government to ask the views, although I think that you've already possibly identified correctly what the Scottish Government's view will be. Which of that are the other options would you prefer this committee to follow through? The worst thing for anyone who is a fugitive and being victimised for doing something noble, whether being solitary confinement in prison or whatever, is the feeling that you're alone. One can suffer greatly with the idea that people out there know what's going on, but the idea of being isolated can be very demoralising. Snowden's election by Glasgow University students felt great afterwards. It made him feel good even when exile has been used as a punishment against them. I would ask the committee to push the petition as vigorously as possible, as quickly as possible, and that the offer be made. The acceptance of the offer would have to follow an evaluation. However, the reason I ask for that is that this saturation surveillance is happening today, tomorrow, and millions and millions of our emails and texts are being harvested. I think that it's a very urgent, dangerous situation. It goes well beyond the nightmares of that. The imagination of George Orwell could not encompass this power by Big Brother. Given the size of the challenge, if I can say the danger, the response needs to be commensurate. I would ask that we don't get up too close and look too closely at the future extradition arrangements following the referendum, maybe yes or no, in result. However, an offer by a statement of position by this committee would be—well, I was interviewed by the Russian news agency and a couple of other international news agencies today—that the deliberations of this committee are going to be significant. I would ask us to take a position of principle and to push the petition as vigorously and as quickly as possible. Just to be clear then that I'm understanding you correctly, would you wish us to write to the Scottish Government and ask the Scottish Government's assessment of the situation? Would that be useful, or would you wish it to—it doesn't sound like you wish it deferred until after the referendum? I would not wish it to be deferred, chair. I would wish you to write to the Scottish Government and, as for a clear answer, I would wish you to take any steps within your power. I don't know to what extent you can stimulate any debate inside other sections of the Government, but I would ask you to take every step that you possibly can. Thank you, Mr Brewer. Just briefly, when you alluded to Scottish Futures, I'm so glad that you've read it, convener. I ask you questions later. In the issue of extradition, there would have to be, I would hope, going forward evidence of criminality, and I think that is quite important going forward in terms of—we had a situation where the hackers' name escapes me—that ran for about five years, four years, five years, the young Scots guy. Just for clarity, when we're talking about things like this, we need to be very clear as to the principles that would be applied in terms of looking at international agreements. John Wilson. One question to Mr Napier. Do you think that it would be appropriate for this committee to offer false hope to Mr Snowden regarding political asylum if, on 19 September, and beyond 19 September, irrespective of his outcome in that referendum, the extradition treaty with the United States is not revoked? There are moments. There are huge issues at different periods in history, and this one is the big issue today. I don't think that Mr Snowden is naive. He has taken this step, he's given up, as he said, living in paradise in very secure conditions, high salary, great life, and he's taken a step and looking back on it, he is pleased that he did so despite the dangers, despite, according to very reputable US media sources, elements inside the American intelligence community openly discussing the option of killing him, and this has been discussed in the media as well. He thinks that he took the right step. He will not think that the offer of asylum by a committee or by a group of parliamentarians means that it's a done deal and that he should buy a ticket from Moscow to Preswick or Glasgow, but it will be a morale booster. It will be a signal, more importantly, to people in Scotland that there are people inside the Parliament who view the saturation surveillance gathering very, very seriously indeed, because not much is coming out from the political domain that this issue is treated with the gravity that it undoubtedly deserves. I think that that would be newsworthy, and it would be newsworthy as a declaration of principle. If I may say, and I exclude people inside this room, politicians currently have a very poor reputation indeed. They are very low in public esteem and this is a young parliament and, hopefully, will escape the opprobrium of their partners in Westminster, where the majority had to return money wrongly obtained in the last Parliament. However, I think that this is an opportunity for parliamentarians to change that to win back public esteem by being seen to take a stand on an issue of principle and the details can be ironed out later. I would love to continue longer with this debate as I'm sure you've identified, but unfortunately we have other petitioners back. If you could just remain for a second. We're now finished with the questions and it's for the committee to make the decision as always, so we're at the summation point, so we have to decide what we do with the petitioners as you'll be aware. You've hopefully given some advice to us on the next steps, but again this is for committee members to look at the next steps. My own view is that I think that there is merit in asking the Scottish Government its view. You've probably identified what you think the view is, but I think that I've always been normally right to the Scottish Government when it does deal with the Scottish Government function, but again I'd like to my colleagues just to see their individual views on this matter. Chip Brodie. Difficult, give you that. As I said earlier, I sympathise with what Mr Snowden did, of course to do. I take the point that John Wilson made about offering false hope, and while a letter the Government might produce the same answer that Mr Napier has had from the Scottish Government, I just wonder if it's wise to do anything. This is not what's the phrase, kicking into the long grass. It's wise to do anything until we know the situation after September the 18th. I don't like unnecessarily prolonging decision making, but I'm conscious of Mr Snowden's position, but I'll go along with the general committee. John Wilson. I think that, as I've already outlined, I've got general sympathy with the petitioners before us, and if it was in our gift, and I mean the gift to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, I would like to see us being able to give political asylum to Mr Snowden. However, given that it's not in the gift of the Scottish Government at the present moment, I do feel that it will be subject to negotiation. The convener is quite rightly pointed to the white paper, which clearly outlines paragraph 260. There would be the intention of the potential future Scottish Government to honour that extradition treaty that I think I would be minded to delay further consideration of the petition until after September the 18th, to allow us then to take forward a debate within this Parliament, within this committee, about the wider issues that this political asylum petition seeks in relation to not only Mr Snowden's life and liberty, but also the issue about extradition treaties with a country that seems to flout international law. That would be my opinion. It's clear that it's not within our gift, and I think that the Scottish Government has clearly indicated in page 260 what their intentions are if there was a yes vote on September the 18th. I'm not really sure of the merits of what Mr Napier has already written to the Scottish Government. They have already indicated their response, of which it obviously isn't of Mr Napier's satisfaction. However, I'm not sure if we, as a committee, would receive any other response differently. I certainly have some sympathy with the petitioner, and he's certainly spoken passionately about his case today. As has been mentioned by yourself, convener, we're limited to the action that we can take. Even with a successful yes vote, Scotland won't be independent until March 2016, so it would be a decision to be taken by the new Scottish Government of whatever colour that might be. I note the request by Mr Napier to move speedily with the petition, but there are issues with regard to Mr Snowden's temporary asylum. I believe that Russia has only granted temporary asylum for a year, so perhaps the 21 other countries that he's applied to for political asylum, perhaps there could be some intervention from one of them before his temporary asylum is up. I would tend to concur with the general feeling of the committee that, given that there are these two issues, the temporary asylum that he currently has in Russia and waiting to see the result of the referendum in September, we should defer further action until after the referendum. It's from Mr Torrance. Can we be canon? Fert to after the referendum. Can we be canon? Absolutely. I think that we should defer to the after the referendum. Have you been premature to deal with it just now? Is there anything to do with Edward Snowden in this case? I just think that he's not really been on our competence, and I don't think that there's any point in writing to the Scottish Government because it won't matter. Thank you, colleagues. I think that all of us are very interested in your petition. I think that the majority opinion is clear that we need to defer. That doesn't mean that the petition is concluded. We would obviously wish to keep it carefully up to date after the referendum and discuss the issue further, depending on the result in September 2018. Thank you so much for your contributions. I think that you've made an excellent contribution both in your five minutes and the way that you've answered the questions. I think that you're really an example to other petitioners of how to deal with petitions in this Parliament. I congratulate you on your performance today, and I'll suspend for two minutes until our witnesses to change round. Thank you. We can continue with our committee. We're on the second new petition, which is PE1522 by Simon Brogan on improving bulk fuel storage safety. Members have a note by the clerks by briefing on the petition. Could I welcome the petitioner, Mr Brogan? You're very welcome, Mr Brogan. Thanks for coming along. If you could give us a brief presentation of round five minutes to set the context of your petition, I'll kick off with a few questions and then my colleagues will add additional questions. Mr Brogan. Thank you very much for inviting me here today. This is actually the second petition that I've launched as a result of the Bunsfield fire and explosion in December 2005. The petition was launched in February 2006, but more to the point, what am I on to today? Kirkwall in Orkney has two bulk fuel storage sites in the town. One is the Kirkwall power station owned by Scottish and Southern, which is very infrequently used since Orkney is connected by the grid through submarine cable to mainland Scotland. But it holds two 500 tonne tanks of diesel fuel at this power station. The Shaw Street Kirkwall fuel distribution depot holds 1,640 tonnes of diesel and kerosene. By virtue of the fact that the fuel is for onward distribution, it doesn't fall under the water environment oil storage Scotland 2006 regulations. The Kirkwall power station, which does fall under the water environment oil storage Scotland 2006 regulations, means that it has to have modern bunding arrangements. Now, bunding is the secondary containment measure that's used to prevent damage to the environment. So the primary container is the steel tank, the secondary containment is the bund and there is a tertiary containment system where you gather rainwater or oil that's spilt within the bund and prevent it from going off site. So you have two bulk fuel storage depots in Kirkwall, one used for onward distribution, the other used on site, one governed by a law, which Scotland passed, which means that it has to have a more modern bunding arrangement. Shaw Street depot is not governed by that act nor is it governed by any other act except the health and safety work act. Given that the four out of the six tanks at Shaw Street were built in 1938, I think that the Scottish Parliament has really got a duty to do something about this. If I was to describe to you that the nearest house to the nearest tank is 30 feet away, there are very close dwellings to this. It is in the sort of centre of the front of Kirkwall. It's a disgrace that it's still there and it's high time something was done about it. Thank you very much, Mr Brogan, for your presentation. I'm actually familiar with the Shaw Street to Kirkwall. In fact, I think I had, where my Hans-Ions had a surgery case to do with that. Ironically enough when I was staying in the Kirkwall hotel, which was a jump from the actual depot yourself. Basically, if I understand your presentation, your concerns are about health and safety and preventing fire and explosions in the future in Scotland by having a different regime. Would that be a fair summary of your petition? That's not a totally adequate summary because the water environment oil storage regulations insist on an impermeable lining to the bund, including under the tank. Scottish and Southern's power station in South Uist leaked 40 tonnes of diesel in November of 2008, and having just spent in 2007 a quarter of a million pounds upgrading the bunding, Scottish and Southern decided they wouldn't lift the tanks to put an impermeable lining underneath because it was going to cost too much, pedo, typical and be a problem. So the necessity for an impermeable lining throughout the bund can only be insisted upon if all these fuel depots that escape this water environment oil storage rags, due to this arbitrary distinction of one lot used the diesel on site and the other distributed. There's no sense to this distinction of onward distribution because, in point of fact, the oil storage with an oil distribution depot means that there's a lot more oil coming and going, so there's more risk. The other aspect then, of course, is your worries about water pollution as well as the diesel. This is the whole point, but the thing about bunding is that it is the bet noir of the oil storage industry because bunding has to withstand enormous fire hazards and temperatures which create massive problems. They have to cope with rain. You've got to deal, a sealed bund means that it would fill with rainwater if it wasn't dealt with. It's a problem, but it's the only way of securing the environment. That's a very good point. Thank you very much for that and I ask if any of my colleagues would wish to ask questions, points or observations. Angus MacDonald. Thanks, convener. Listening to Mr Brogan, it certainly seems that he has a very valid point. Heiling from Stornoway has similar issues regarding bulk fuel storage and representing Falkirk East, which has Scotland's petrochemical complex and refinery. I'm certainly aware of the Coma regulations and the need to ensure following Bunsfield that there was proper bunds put in place. However, as Mr Brogan mentioned, the Scottish Government has taken action to ensure proper bunds are in place, certainly in Grangemouth, in my constituency, again following Bunsfield. There seems to be an anomaly, good grief, with regard to a risk, whether the fuel is for use on site or for forward distribution. I'm not aware of the situation in Kirkwall. Certainly, looking at the Stornoway situation, there's probably difficulty in getting the bunds in place in such a tight area. It might be that the distribution companies would have to look at building bulk fuel storage sites on the outskirts of the town instead. I don't know if that's the case in Kirkwall or not. You've raised two points. First one, Coma regulations, the control of major accident hazards. The fuel depot that I'm talking about falls below the inventory threshold, which is 2,500 tonnes. Anything above 2,500 tonnes goes into lower tier Coma, and they are highly regulated. Kirkwall fuel station falls out of that. With regard to the bunding, the size of the bunding, the height of the bund walls, is predetermined and I'm told that's okay, but it's the impermeable lining that Kirkwall fuel station doesn't have and which is insisted upon for all those bulk fuel that come under the water environment oil storage Scotland 2006 regs. It's something that the Scottish Parliament can do. Certainly, from the feedback it does seem to be the case that there is an issue, and we certainly need to raise it with the environment minister for one. Do other colleagues wish to have questions, points or observations? John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Can I just get clarification on from you, Mr Brogan, about the definition of onward distribution and what you consider to be the definition of that, because my understanding is that the fuel that's in those containers can be in there, those containers for some period of time, and they will be constantly top-top. Effectively, this argument about onward distribution doesn't really stand up in relation to the dangers that may be presented because of the inaction by either the Government in relation to applying the appropriate regulations or the operators of the site. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking. The question that I'm asking is the definition of onward. What you've said in your petition is that part of the exemption from the regulation is because the oil being stored is for onward distribution. It's really trying to get your interpretation of what that definition really means. You've got two types of bulk fuel storage. You've got the fuel that's stored on site to be used on site. In the case of Kirkwall's power station, it'll be burnt in the generators. In the case of the Shaw Street fuel depot, the fuel is pumped from ships into the tanks, trucks, tanker trucks are constantly being filled and driven away. It's imported and then distributed through the community. The point that I'm trying to make, convener, is how full these tanks can be at any one time or over a period of time. I understand that the fuel is taken from tankers into the containers and then from the containers into the trucks for distribution, but it's the period of time in which that fuel can be lying in that depot before it goes for onward distribution. It's difficult to know. I don't know exactly how often the coastal tanker delivers oil to Kirkwall, but let's say it's on average every six weeks. They hold 1,640 tonnes of diesel and kerosene and they'll be filled, the tanks will be filled and then in a course of that six weeks the levels drop down until they organise for another boat to arrive. And the boat is shared, I mean the boat comes up from maybe Grangemouth and it'll feed into maybe Wick, Inverness, Lairwick and Kirkwall. Thank you. And whilst at a naive level you could say that a lot of these oil tankers, a lot of these oil containers could be out with the main areas of the harbours, but of course for logistics they're at harbours for good reasons because the fuel is shipped in, so Inverness for example has oil storage, so does Kirkwall, so does Western Isles. There's good solid reasons for it, but I think your point is, of course they have to be there, but you need to make sure that the proper bonding is in place and that hasn't always happened in the regulations, don't always apply to them. So I think you've made some very good points, unless members have any other urgent points I would suggest we go to summation. If you just, if we are Mr Brogan, this is where you probably noticed from our previous petition where we now decide the next steps and in certainly my view is there some very clear next steps such as obvious Scottish Government's SIPA, Health and Safety Executive. I'm also quite interested though in what the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service would say about this, and you've mentioned SSE, I think it makes sense to write to them and perhaps other parallel companies. Would members be agreeable to that collection of groups? We did, but does anybody have missed that you would suggest that we write to? John? I was going to suggest we write to the Orkney Council to ask them their views on this because there will be an environmental health issue that Orkney Council should have been considered and whether or not they made any representation to the Government on this issue. Thank you for that, Angus MacDonald. Thank you. Presumably there's a private company distributing the fuel on Orkney, so it might be an idea to contact them to get their view as well. I think Highland fuels have a role as well, do they not? In Orkney, it's Scottish fuels, or more recently, they changed their name to Sir Tass. Okay, so it's worth writing to them as well. Are members agreeable into that collection? Yep. So as you've heard, Mr Brogan, we're very interested in your petition, we're going to take it forward, we'll keep you up to date with developments, and obviously we'll try as we do for all petitions to take it to the end of the degree to make sure that you get satisfaction on the very genuine points you've raised. Thank you again for coming along, safe journey back, and I'll suspend for one minute because we're really tight for time today until I, Mr Brogan, to leave. If we could continue with our committee, the third new petition today is PE1516 by Malcolm Lamont on referendum for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Members have a note by the clerk, the spice briefing and the petition. I can refer members to the note by the clerk and ask members' views. Are members content that this petition is admissible? Thank you. Members are content that the petition is admissible. As with all petitions, we need to look at the various options that are possible. A, we can invite the petitioner to come and speak to the petition, or we could write to the Scottish Government and ask their view. We could defer the consideration after the referendum or take any other actions that the committee considers appropriate. Can we ask for views from committee members? First of all, whether committee members feel it appropriate that we ask the petitioner to come in and speak as we do for a number of other petitions. We've already ruled on that, so we can. We're now looking at actions for the committee. The clerks advise me that the only practical issue is that I understand that the petitioner is on holiday and might not be immediately available, but we will obviously ascertain dates if the committee is so minded when the petitioner can come in. What's the committee's view on inviting the petitioner? First of all, the wide-ranging issue that's been raised and not referring to any regular random fatigue. Perhaps in the first instance, we should write to the Scottish Government to seek their views, and then perhaps we can, based on that response, consider whether or not we should have Malcolm Lamont come in. It says in the petition how many signatures have you collected so far. How many supporters of the petition have there been? We could get absolute confirmation, but it's over 2,000 signatures. Mr Boris suggests that we, in the first instance, write to the Scottish Government to ask their views, and once we get that back, we can work out the next steps that could be inviting the petitioner along. Members agreeable to that, Mr Wilson? Mr Boris suggests that we write to the Scottish Government to seek their views before inviting Mr Lamont along to a committee meeting. The only clarification that I would seek, convener, is the title of the petition that says, Referenda for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Can I get clarification whether or not referenda is the correct terminology? My understanding from a linguist is that we should actually be using the term referendums because the plural of referendum is referendums rather than referenda, so I would seek some clarification on that at our future date as well. We will seek advice from a higher authority, but I always bow down to Mr Wilson's understanding of English. We have a suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government to get their view, and we will deal with this at a future meeting. Members agreeable to that? I am conscious of time, colleagues, but I will take the petitions as they are in order. This is the consideration of current petitions. I am conscious that we have got Eileen Smith who is here, so I am keen to reach Eileen Smith's item agenda. However, if time is against us, there is one final thing that we need to do as far as the annual report is concerned, but we will just see how the time goes. Can I just move to agenda item 3, consideration of current petitions? We are P.E.1412 by Bill McDowall on bonds of cation. Members have a note by the clerk. Clearly, we have dealt with this, I think, very good petition for some time. There is a suggestion that we defer this till after the Scottish Government announces its next legislative programme, so the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to prioritise this work. In its view, there is no clear agreement in the way forward on this a number of related issues, for those reasons it tends to consult when other priorities allow. I think that that seems to me a very strong steer that we do defer this until their announcement, but again I will take advice and guidance from the committee. Have people agreeable? Thank you for that. I will then move to P.E.1463 by Lorraine Cleaver on effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment. Members have a note by the clerk and some missions. I think that we had a very interesting round table on this issue. Elaine Smith MSP is a long-standing interest in the petition, and I welcome Elaine Smith to the meeting. We are a bit tight for time, but she will be very familiar with any other role. Ms Smith can invite a brief contribution from you. Thank you very much, convener. I want to thank the committee for the time that they have taken so far in reading the evidence and understanding the scale of the issue, and in reading the personal stories, which I think we may agree were sad and tragic, given that medical help is available, and it is available in countries other than the UK. For example, in Belgium, Armour Thyroid is prescribed. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, Lorraine Cleaver, cannot be here, but she did submit a note highlighting her own dependency upon the dessicated thyroid hormone. As you know, many others also rely on it. I think that it is worrying that they were previously able to buy it from the USA, but recently the FDA seemed to be demanding prescriptions now to ship it into the UK. I think that the question needs to be asked why this sudden change, Lorraine Cleaver, seems to wonder whether it is at the instigation of the UK. Obviously, that was the normal treatment, as we all know, prior to the patenting of T4, and it is quite literally bringing people back to life. That is where the worry is that GPs could prescribe it as long as they take personal responsibility for their treatment. It would obviously be better for people not to have to buy it from the US anyway, but to have their GPs prescribing it. I understand if they meet the guidelines if they have tried the licensed product first. Obviously, a lot of people feel that they are being denied health. People feel that the GPs might be breaking the Hippocratic Oath and denying them treatment that would help them and has shown to help them, but they are having to purchase themselves from abroad. Obviously, there is not financial benefits with dessicated thyroid hormone for the pharmacotical companies. That might be the reason why, in your letter from the Government, I note that in that letter they talk about T3 and what they say in the letter, which is PE1463TT. At the bottom of the page it says that it might be that companies do not see it in their economic interests to enter into such a small market. That is a possibility for why there is only one pharmacotical company making T3. As we know, there were problems with that when there was no supply of T3. There was also another shortage in March this year, convener. I do not know if you know that. That was resolved again, but it highlights that there is only one supplier. I think that some of the evidence that you have received for this committee meeting also shows some close ties between pharmacotical companies and the medical profession. If I turn quickly to the listening exercise, I understand from Lorraine Cleaver's submission that she met David Klein. She is pleased to be given the opportunity to contribute to that exercise. It is good that evidence is being gathered because it affects so many people in Scotland. However, I am still not entirely clear—I do not know if the committee is—about how much of that will be focused specifically on thyroid problems, which was something that the committee had asked before. Personally, I would also be happy to contribute to that exercise if, in any way whatsoever, and I hope that it will be publicised that it is happening. Given that you are short for time, I respectfully ask the committee to consider keeping that petition open until at least until the listening exercise is finished, but also again that the committee gives some consideration to its inquiry, with a focus on issues such as gathering the available clinical evidence, taking evidence from patients, including those who are part on T4, to find out if they are actually well on T4 or what are the other symptoms that they are suffering, and to consider why GPs will not prescribe dedicated thyroid hormone, which was the safe way to treat underactive thyroid conditions when it clearly helps to bring patients back to life and keeps them economically active. I think that there are a lot of things in there that an inquiry could look into and that it would benefit many patients and also perhaps benefit the NHS in the long run. I thank Elaine Smith for coming along and giving that presentation. There has been suggestion from Elaine Smith that we keep the petition open and consider it again once the Scottish Government's project and patient experience is complete. Are members agreeable? Are members of additional points to Elaine Smith first? Yes. Can you take John Wilson first and then check Rory? Thank you, convener. It was just an additional point, as I think that Elaine Smith quite rightly identified. We do not know, in terms of the consultation that the Government is currently carrying out, how many thyroid patients will be involved in that, and the issue for me would be to, if we could write to the Scottish Government to find out whether or not they will do more detailed work in speaking to thyroid patients to actually find out and get their contribution to that debate, because there is no point in having waiting on the Scottish Government response and then only to find out that thyroid patients were fully considered in terms of the evidence that is gathered in the report produced. It has urged the committee to write to the Scottish Government now to ask for special consideration being made that thyroid patients are targeted to ensure that they are getting the appropriate treatment. Thank you for that, Mr Wilson. Can I say this? Since joining the committee, it is probably one of the most thorough and interesting things that are on board. In terms of comprehensive petitions, I was going to make the same point as John Wilson. I do not know in terms of the remit or the terms of the Government's project, but I would suggest that that does not inhibit people being encouraged to write to the Government and detailing their experience. Thank you, Elaine Smith, for coming along. We will have to wait on the listening exercise to be complete. However, Elaine Smith has raised another number of issues that are outstanding and that have not been answered in this petition that we have had for a long, long time. Would it be possible for this group to do an inquiry just to answer all the questions that have been raised? There are loads of different issues that are hanging out there, work that is not being done currently. We need answers for people with regard to that, and I am not sure that we are going to solely get those answers from the listening exercise, even if we consider what John Wilson had mentioned earlier to ensure that thyroid sufferers are included in that exercise. I think that it might be useful if we ask the clerk to look at the question detail of the point of phrase. Obviously, it would be considerable work for the committee, but I think that all the committee members agree that this is an excellent petition. We want to go as far as we can with it, but I would like some guidance first on work implications for the staff before we make a final decision. Other views from committee members? Thanks, I would certainly like to hear from the committee clerks to see if it would be possible to hold an inquiry. However, can I maybe just place on record an acknowledgement that I am sure that the petitioners must be feeling extremely frustrated at the length of time that this is taking? It is just to basically place that on record that we understand the frustration. Do any members have any other additional points? Are we all agreeable then that we are going to keep the petition open? Just one other question that I would like to ask the Scottish Government. Sorry about this, convener, but the issue in terms of David Klein's response when he makes reference to the batches of T3 and availability of T3 and he has made reference to the fact that it is no decisions over whether or not to manufacture particular medicines are for pharmaceutical companies. I think that the issue for many of the thyroid patients is that the supply of T3 is not who manufactures it and whether or not it is manufactured in the UK is about making sure that if there is a pharmaceutical company who is producing that T3, that access should be given to that irrespective of what country it is being produced in, so it is to try and guarantee the supply and it would seek clarification from the Scottish Government. If T3 was not available in the UK from UK pharmaceutical companies, would they seek the import of T3 from other countries on the proviso that it met the strict guidance in relation to the material used and the effectiveness of that T3? Do members have any other comments or quickly how we are going forward then? We are going to continue this. We are going to await the Scottish Government's project. We are going to get a note from the Clarecon in future meeting to look at whether a mini inquiry would be possible. I could finally thank Elaine Smith again and the petitions for coming along. I think that this is a very, very good petition. I thank you for coming along, Elaine Smith, and I quickly move on. I am conscious of time, colleagues, that there has been quite a lot of pressure on our timetable today and we have got a couple of petitions to reach, one of which, at least there is one of the petitioners in the gallery. With your permission, could I defer the Pete Gregson one unless there is a strong feeling to the next meeting and ask that we deal with PE1508 out of sequence? Would that be agreeable? PE1508 by Sean Clarecon on Aptos is a sponsor for 2014 Commonwealth Games. I think that Mr Clarecon was at one of our previous meetings and gave evidence. Members have a note by the Clarecon submission. Could I ask for views of possible options for the committee? We have obviously written to a whole series of organisations about the issues raised by the petitioner. First, I will get a general view from members on the next steps. On the basis of silence, I will move that there are a number of things that we can look at in this petition, but certainly there is a recommendation that we close the petition on the basis that the work of vital society is integral to the games and a change of sponsor could undermine the smooth running of Glasgow 2014. However, in doing so, I think that the committee could write to the organising committee drawing its attention to the evidence that the committee has gathered on the issue so that the organisers are in left in no doubt on the strong comments made by the petitioner, which were very clear and the evidence that we have gathered back as well. Are committee members agreeable to that course of action? I move to agenda item 4, which is annual report. The final item of agenda day is consideration of the committee's draft annual report to the Parliament in the area limits of May 2013 to the tenth of May 2014. Members will know that all committee reports fall a standard format, as agreed by the community's group. Members have the draft report. My own views on it, and I think that it looks at a straightforward account of what we have done. I could not see a reference to the plenary session that we had on organ donation, but I could be wrong at that point. If not, I would suggest that we certainly add that. I do not know whether it is competent, but certainly the sessions that we did with Lombardy Delegation was also useful with John Wilson and Chick Brody. If that is appropriate, then the clerk can advise me if that is the case. Are members agreeable to John Wilson? Obviously, it is important that we look at promoting as well as we can the committee, as the committee is doing something unusual, different, innovative. We should be reflecting that in the annual report. Certainly for general committee reports, I was very impressed with the work that the convener's group had done on looking at changing, if you like, the marketing and presentation of reports. We will get that in due course, but it was very impressive. It was a huge improvement to the rather staid approach and no reflection to the clerk's work on this. It is just that the approach was a bit old fashioned. I think that the new approach is much better, but we should get that automatically in the future. Are members agreeable of any changes to the annual report? Are members happy with the annual report format? I thank you very much for that. Just looking at the inquiries and reports, I know that this is a report of what we have done, but clearly I want that petition on child sexual exploitation. It has certainly let me down on me, and I am sure that there is no comment in that we should do more on it. I agree with Mr Boody. Perhaps we can beef out the section on what we did in the report, because that was a huge comment. The clerk was certainly a form of words. Members agreeable with that format. I formally closed the meeting and asked if members could stay behind just for 30 seconds. I just allowed the gallery to clear. The meeting is formally closed.