I welcome everyone to the second meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in session 5. I remind everyone present that they should turn off their mobile phones to avoid any interruptions or interference with the sound system. We also have apologies that have been received from Maurice Corry. The first item on agenda today is consideration of four new petitions. We will take evidence on two of those petitions, PE1598, protecting wild salmonids from sea lice from Scottish salmon farms. The first new petition on our agenda is by Guy Lindley-Adams on behalf of Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland. He is joined by Andrew Grahame Stewart, who is the director of the organisation. I ask Mr Lindley-Adams to make a brief opening statement of no more than five minutes before we move on to questions, and welcome to you today. Thank you very much. I'd like to firstly thank the committee and your predecessor committee. This is the third petition that the Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland has sent your way. Previous one, PE1547 on coastal netting of salmonids led ultimately this year to salmon conservation regulations, with which we are delighted. Previous petition on aquaculture was fed into the run-up to the Aquaculture and Fisheries Act 2013. Again, it was a very good process and shows the value of the petitions committee and the work that it does. I'd like to thank you for all those efforts. I'd like to also thank the clerks for their excellent guidance before today. They told me very strictly not to repeat the petition, not to go through it verbatim, which I won't do. I'd like to bring you up to date with some developments since we first lodged the petition in December of last year. As you may know, the sea lice data is published three months in arrears by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation. It's aggregated data explaining the levels of sea lice on the fish farms in the previous three months. In December of last year, the percentage of Scottish production of salmon, the capacity of the farms in the regions affected that were over the code of good practice threshold for sea lice was 58.8%. Since then, it has risen, and the last lot of data we have for March of this year, the figure hits 66.4%. Essentially, two thirds of the production of Scottish salmon farms is operating above the code of good practice threshold for the average number of female sea lice per fish. Those are the egg-producing lice that caused the problem for wild fish by producing many juvenile sea lice. The inexorable rise in sea lice problems continues, and it doesn't appear that the control methods are working. There is still that problem with this being aggregated data. In any particular region, there can be up to 20 farms, so we don't know which of the farms are performing badly. Yes, there will certainly be some better farms in there that are controlling their sea lice well, but the flipside of that coin is that there will be some very poor farms, completely failing to control sea lice. We are unable to identify those farms at the moment. That was all aired at the Racky Committee in the run-up to the 2013 act, and it was the committee's view that that would be kept under review and maybe farm-specific sea lice data should be published. I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that the Norwegian Food Safety Agency has produced an online, real-time sea lice database accessible by the public, farm-specific data, data about treatment, where the problems are. I have to say that it is far in advance of the Scottish system. I commend that to the committee if they have time and wish to investigate it. Unfortunately, the website is only in Norwegian at the moment, which makes it a little more difficult. There is one other thing that I would like to briefly touch on. You would have received submissions from Calender McDowell, and there are all sorts of other debates about the science behind this. Is there an effect? Can we show an effect on wild populations and so on? Marine Scotland Science, the Government's fishery scientist, has produced a very useful five-page summary of the science document. I will, if I may, just read the conclusions from that document. The clerks have a copy, and I hope to be able to circulate it to the committee after this meeting. However, it says in summary that salmon aquaculture can result in elevated numbers of sea lice in open water and hence is likely to increase the infestation potential on wild salmonids. This, in turn, could have an adverse effect on populations of wild salmonids in some circumstances. The magnitude of any such impact in relation to overall mortality levels is not known for Scotland. However, concerns that there may be a significant impact of aquaculture have been raised due to declines and catches of both salmon and sea trout on the Scottish west coast. There is scientific evidence that individual Scottish sea trout can experience physiological detrimental burdens of salmon lice in areas with salmon aquaculture, but the effect on populations in different areas is not known. Scientific evidence from Norway and from Ireland indicates that early protection against salmon lice parasitism results in reduced absolute marine mortality, increasing recapture rates of experimental salmon and reducing the time spent at sea, indicating that salmon lice can influence the population status of wild salmon. Salmon lice can influence the population level of wild salmon. That is the conclusion not of us and not of the aquaculture body, but of marine Scotland science. If they are able to conclude that, we would say that we need a precautionary approach and strict control as possible on sea lice from Scottish aquaculture in order to protect what is rightly an extremely valuable asset for Scotland—that is the wild salmon population. Only this month, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation met in Germany, Scotland was represented and came forward—the Scottish Government came forward—with proposals for higher thresholds for escalation plans and potentially reducing biomass at farms, but the levels at which those steps would take effect are much higher than all the other aquaculture nations represented thought were sensible. Scotland's system is recognised as being the most lax in terms of control of sea lice compared to the Norwegians, compared to the Irish and so on. We would like to see that tightened up and brought into line, frankly, with the other salmon farming producing nations. Without going into any more detail, I would like to conclude that our petition asks for a statutory duty to be placed on Scottish ministers to regulate farmed fish for the express purpose of protecting wild fish. At the moment, all the legislation is pointed at the health and welfare of the farmed animal, not of the wild fish. We think that ministers should have a duty, should have the requisite powers, and we would like to see the relocation programme identifying those farms that were in the wrong place. We would like to see that rejuvenated. It rather ran into the sand in 2008 and has not gone very much further. We believe that if that could be done, there is an awful lot of progress that can be made. To finish off, I would like to put on the record that Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland is not trying to shut down the aquaculture industry. We are not in that business, so we get accused of it a lot of times. We recognise just how important aquaculture is to Scotland. What we would like to do is make it more sustainable so that wild fish can thrive alongside the industry. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. I bring in Angus MacDonald to begin the question. Okay. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Unlay Adams. Good morning, Mr Graham Stewart. You will be aware that during the debates on aquaculture and fisheries bill in 2013, it was agreed that the data on sea lights would be published voluntarily by the industry in certain areas. That has been done, and, in fact, as was promised to the Iraqi committee at the time, the industry has been reporting back on a three-monthly basis to the individual members of the committee, which was helpful. You have mentioned Norway, which is clearly the nearest comparator country to Scotland with regard to the salmon industry, and perhaps Chile is the next closest comparator. You have mentioned that there have been some developments in Norway where they are now issuing farm-by-farm data that was clearly called for by a number of people, stakeholders, when the evidence sessions were taking place in this place in 2013. Clearly, those are more robust messages than we have here in Scotland. Why do you think that the farm-by-farm data is not being released publicly? Do you believe that that information is available for a start? Strangely, in certain regions, it is only by virtue of the fact that one or two of the regions only have a single farm in them, so the aggregated data is obviously related to the one farm. In some respects, it is unfair on those operators that they are clearly identified. The industry does feel that its data is its data and it should not have to share it. In some respects, there is a higher-level principle that why should we share this data with everyone? They are concerned that particular farms will be singled out, and I am sure that that is in the forefront of their mind. However, in order to identify farms that have problems, that need relocation, a lot of these farms are the very early farms that were initially put in the sheltered bays in the mouths of estuaries and so on, because it was a new industry, because it was easier to control the cages if they were close to land, if they were sheltered and so on. It is those farms that quite often have the problems. If we can identify those farms, talk to the local authorities, talk to the industry, identify sites where they could be moved to, away from—because the problem is that when they are in the mouths of the river, they are in the migratory channels for the wild sun on it. If you are moving offshore into open water, and the kit these days, the cages, enable that to happen, not only can you get away from the interaction with the wild sun on it, actually you can probably increase your biomass as well, because you are out further, you have got better flow of water and so on. The publication of farm-specific data will enable us to identify more clearly those farms that we would like to put forward for relocation. OK. Do you understand the industry's concerns that the issue of farm-by-farm data could have serious consequences on the viability of a farm if that information was widely received? I understand why, but I am not entirely sure why it would be correct to shelter a poorly performing farm from scrutiny just because it might cause them an issue. To give you an indication, most of the supermarkets do not name the farm of production. Sainsbury's are different. The co-op are different. They do name the farm on the front of the package of the smoked salmon products that they sell, but an awful lot do not. An awful lot of ready meals and so on do not identify the farm of origin, so I do not think that we are in a situation where you are going to get consumer pressure building out against a particular farm, having any particular impact on that farm. OK. As you know, enforcement notices can be served on individual farms. What do you know about the enforcement regime? Notices from the fish health inspectorate. Yes. They can indeed serve enforcement notices of a variety of different notices, but the purpose of those notices is to protect the health and welfare of the farmed animal. You can get a situation, particularly in the second year of production, where the farmed fish can tolerate 10, 15 adult female lice quite happily because they are about to be harvested. It does not cause an economic problem for the farmer, but while those fish are in the last few months of their life in the cages with these lice on, they are producing a large number of juvenile lice that are leaving the cages and impacting on the wild fish. The fish health inspectorate has a collection of adult female lice on, but it is not causing a health and welfare issue for the farmed animal. They cannot act. They do not have the legal powers to act expressly for the purpose of protecting wild fish. OK. Thank you. You stated in your petition that you have met with Marine Scotland on a number of occasions, and I think that it is fair to say that you are not impressed. Given that you stated that there has been a lack of progress in protecting wild salmon ads from harm caused by the industry, what more do you believe that Marine Scotland should be doing to address the issue? I think that Marine Scotland suffers from the same situation as the fish health inspectorate. Their focus is largely on the health and welfare of the farmed animal. The responsibility for the wild fish is falling between two stools. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency just deals with the water pollution side of things. Scottish Natural Heritage will only involve itself with those European protected areas, the SACs. A vast majority of fish farms are nowhere near the SACs, and so there is a gap in the law. There is not an agency responsible. I would not say that we are universally appalled by Marine Scotland far from it. The staff are excellent and we have a very good and jovial relationship with them. Obviously, they have a particular line to steer, and we have ours. We do make progress with them. You have made a general statement that wild salmon ads in the agriculture zone on Scotland's west coast are in trouble. Is it not the case that they are in trouble across the whole of the North Atlantic region, not just on the west coast? The decline in numbers was identified long before the salmon industry increased to the size that we see today. Wild salmon faces three problems in Scotland. One is declining marine survival, which is universal east-west north. Netting has influenced the level of returns to rivers, the decline in netting, but also aquaculture has influenced matters. We recently did a new study of the salmon rod catches in Scotland. The catch in the salmon farming heartland of the west coast lag far behind those of the farm-free east coast. The five-year average catch for the east coast that is between the Tuid and Cape Roth was up by 40% between 1970 and 2014. In contrast, the five-year average for the west coast that is from Cape Roth down to Mull of Kintar, including the Hebrides, which is the main salmon farming area, the catch there declined by 2014 to 76% of its 1970 value. If the west coast catches had tracked the east, then catches would have been 80% higher in 2014. In the worst area that is Ardena Merchan down to Kintar, the rod catch was by 2014 50% of its 1970 value. I emphasise again that in the east coast it is actually because of the decline in netting gone up by 40%. The great majority of west coast rivers are now in what is called category 3, which is the new government classification of salmon rivers, which means that, according to Scotland's own marine scientists, no exploitation of salmon is sustainable. I would also make one other point that recent extinctions of salmon in Scotland have only occurred in the west highlands and islands. I can give specific examples of extinctions, but we have no similar extinctions on either the east or the north coast. Moving on to one other point, sea trout, which are incredibly important to the rod fishing tourist industry in the west coast and the islands, have been hit far harder than salmon. All the large sea trout on which such fisheries depend have gone. They just don't exist any more. We are talking fish of £3.5, and they have brought in many thousands of anglers between June and September to the west coast and the islands, where tourism is very important. That whole tourism industry in terms of sea trout has gone. It has absolutely collapsed, whereas there has been a decline in sea trout in the east and the north coast, but there is nothing like the decline in the west coast. Mr Lindley-Adams, hello. Just to go back to Marine Scotland and to follow on from my colleague, you will be aware that they have been able to inspect farms since 2007. Are you saying that they are ineffective, that they are not doing their job properly? Not that they are not doing their job properly, but they are inspecting for the purpose of checking the welfare and the health of the farmed fish. When they look at the parasite control, the sea life control on the farm, they are judging it as against the health of the farmed fish. If the farmed fish are okay, then the farm is okay, and there is no need for any enforcement action. What we are saying is that you can have a situation, and it happens quite regularly, where large farmed fish have a few parasites. The health and welfare of the farmed fish is not threatened, but that is still causing a very severe threat to the wildlife someone who is going past it. Marine Scotland's fish health inspectorate is doing a very good job, but they are doing it within the constraints of their legal responsibilities. I was just going to ask, is it too big a job for them to do the wild fish as well? Is that just out with their scoper? Legally, they cannot do that? Legally, they cannot do it. Certainly, they have the expertise. They know what they are looking at when they go on to a farm. A lot of them will have spent many hours bobbing around on the cages. It is not in their remit to do it. It is not in their legal remit at the moment. Okay. The other point that I wanted to ask you was can you clarify what evidence you have got that some fish farms are not complying with the code of industry? How do you know that they are not doing that? Well, the aggregated sea lice data that is produced by the Scottish Salmon Producers organisation three months in arrears shows particular regions that are way over the code of good practice threshold. The threshold is either 1 or 0.5 average adult female lice per fish, depending on what time of year you are at. If they are up at 10, then you can be sure that within that collection of farms in a region, some at least must be not hitting the threshold, not keeping the sea lice numbers below the threshold. The code of good practice requires farmers to treat for lice when they hit the threshold. You can then look at the data that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency publishes on the Scotland's Aquaculture Database. That lists when treatments are applied under particular control activities regulations licenses. If you marry the two together, you can find regions where lice numbers are way over the threshold, average lice numbers, but none of the farms appear to be treating. The implication must be that they are not responding to the voluntary code of good practice. It is very difficult to say a particular farm because we do not have farm specific data, but within an aggregation of 10 or 15 farms, you can say it pretty clearly. What you are saying is that specific monitoring is not available, it is not coming up to scratch. It is not publicly available. There is a thing called the record keeping order. Fish farmers have to keep their own records for inspection by the fish health inspectorate. Unfortunately, because they are held by the farmers and they are not held by the Scottish Government and by Marine Scotland, they are not accessible through freedom of information and environmental information regulations. They are held by the farmers ready for inspection, but they are not provided. Can I add something to what Rhona Mackay has just been alluding to and also what Angus MacDonald mentioned about five minutes ago? Yes, clearly enforcement notices may be served, but they do not seem to do any good. One example of that was in late 2014, the area by Kyle of Locaut. The average number of adult female lice per farm fish went up from around 10 to 15 to 20 and finally ended up at 40. By that point, when they went to Slaughter, they would not have needed skinning the fish. They would not have had any skin left, but for the farm fish, that was deemed to be acceptable. One imagines that the fish health inspectorate sent out enforcement notices, but nothing happened. They just continued—this is Marine Harvest with their farms by Kyle of Locaut—until such point as they decided to slaughter at 40. The number of juvenile lice that would have been produced is mind-boggling. I may have missed this in the papers. Is there a treatment for this sea lice or is it slaughter? Is the only remedy? There are a variety of treatments. Most of them are chemical-based. There is an in-feed treatment, so it is something in the feed, but most of them are bath-type treatments. They hang an impermeable tarpaulin around the cage, put an organophosphate or a pyrethroid-based pesticide in the water, leave it for a couple of hours, then just open the tarpaulins and it washes away. In that two hours, the OPE or the pyrethroid kills the lice and they fall off the fish. It is a very difficult process. It is an expensive process. It is tough work. The operatives have to lug these tarpaulins around in, goodness knows, what sort of weather conditions. It is not easy. Treating sea lice in the pharaohs—the figures that came out just recently—cost the farmers in the pharaohs about half a euro per kilo of fish. It is a substantial cost, but the problem that we have with sea lices is that they are developing an immunity, like any parasite. They develop immunities, and most of the chemical treatments in many areas no longer work. That is why they are trying things like cleaner fish—rass. The success of rass is very patchy. Where we have seen rass introduced, we have actually then seen sea lice numbers increasing. It is a major problem. Obviously, the farmers have got their problems, but whilst they have got their problems, the impact continues on wild fish. All that we are really asking for is for those farms where sea lice are out of control, something that is done to make those farmers slaughter early, cull early or take drastic action to prevent large numbers spreading into the environment. I want to take one last set of questions from Brian Whittle. I want to draw this to a conclusion. I am just going to scratch up a quick follow-on question. I wanted to ask if the pesticides or the chemicals used in the treatment is any danger to any other sea lice? I started out my association with aquaculture as a research student at what was then the Department of Agriculture Fisheries in Scotland, the lab in Aberdeen. This is going back early 1991. Yes, there is strong evidence of resistance to the pesticides in non-target organisms. They are also extremely toxic to crustacea. That is what they are designed to do.   When the tarpaulans are removed, they can have a negative effect there. There are examples of where creel fishermen are alarmed by what they believe is a drop in stock of their quarry because of the location of fish farms. So you are suggesting culling is really the most realistic? Ultimately, it is close containment. Raising farmed fish in a way that is completely biologically separated from the wild fish. Marine Harvest are investing quite a lot of money in two projects, a doughnut project and an egg project. That is the shape of the creation. They are big enough to invest the money, but it is pointing in the right direction. The quicker we get to close containment, the better. It will be better all-round. It will reduce the costs of production dramatically because it is a costly business to train people to run open net cages in pretty hostile weather conditions right the way around the year. It is an expensive business. The petition calls for a threshold to be set in the number of sea alive and farmed fish, almost preventing damage to wild fish. If the threshold is exceeded and the treatment is not successful, the petition states that farmers should have to harvest their fish or cull them, what evidence is there for adopting that approach and setting such thresholds? Well, the threshold exists in the code of good practice at the moment. The subsequent culling or harvesting does not yet. However, this is practice in Norway where they get a severe problem. It does not often result in a formal notice because it is done informally. The Norwegian inspector says that we will serve a notice if you do not do something here. Early culling and early harvesting is recognised as the industry of a way of ultimately dealing with a lice problem if it has gone out of control. What we would like to see is that that happens not just when it reaches a problem for the welfare and the health and welfare of the farmed animal but when it reaches a problem stage for wild fish. It is the gap between the two that concerns us. The petition also refers to a relocation programme in 2008 when it says that it was allowed to run to sand. What happened to that programme and did any of the fish farms get relocated? Relocating a fish farm is difficult. We have suggested in the past that the Scottish Government should look at whether it has the requisite legal powers to assist and facilitate relocation of farms. It is a long process to get planning permission for a fish farm. Fish farmers will not want to relocate if they do not have to because they have invested time and money and effort in getting the planning permission and the various consents for the farms in the first place. The farmers in their private moments will say that those are not ideal farms. That is a particularly licey farm. They would love to be away from that because it makes their job easier. There is difficulty in getting the consents and permissions. We would not be objecting if proper relocation occurred. You have said already that you think that you would need to focus on moving to containment of all farmed salmon in Scotland, as you should be keeping tanks, presumably. Do you have any information about an approach that has been adopted in other countries and whether you have any sense of what that would cost? There are closed containment farms in operation in various locations. If I can provide written information to the committee after today, there are certainly Norwegian examples and fish farming journals. Every other week there is another story about a successful closed containment operation starting up here and everywhere. Ultimately, it is bound to come in because if you have a closed containment site, particularly if you have one on land, you do not have to have wellboats. You do not have to train your staff in detailed health and safety procedures involving working at sea. You do not have to have all that life-saving equipment. You do not have the difficulties of operating in the severe marine environment. Presumably, when they made the choice to have fish farms as they are now, rather than what you describe, despite all that downside of it, they must have regarded that as better than the new option that you are now proposing. Why would that be? I think that at the time it was the only option. I do not think that people believed that closed containment was possible, but the technologies have moved on. We have been farming trout on riversides in closed containment for years, but doing it for salmon is more difficult, but the technologies have moved on and commend Marine Harvest for the amount of work that they are doing on it. The initial capital cost for closed containment is substantial, but once that has been paid for, the on-going running costs are much reduced compared to the open net systems. Do you have any sense of the view of fish farmers as a community about that kind of approach? Marine Harvest is certainly very keen, and they are investing very large sums in research into closed containment in various systems in Norway. I think that we have concluded the questions that we would have. What we now need to think about is whether people have any comments or suggestions about where we go next and any next steps that we might wish to take. Angus? I would certainly be keen to hear the views of Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government, SIPA, the Scottish Salmon Producers Organization, the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards. Given some of the evidence that we heard earlier on, I would be keen to hear from the appropriate Norwegian ministry with regard to the farm-by-farm data system that they have introduced, or perhaps we could ask Spice to look into that for us. I think that that would be useful to get a sense of what is happening in another place. We presume that we are wrestling with the same problems and trying to get that balance right. Are those suggestions from Angus agreed? Is there anything to add to that? No? In that case, I thank you very much for your attendance today and we will pursue the actions that have been described there, and I will suspend the meeting until then. I thank you very much and if I can call us back to order again, we are now going to deal with petition 1602 on ECGs and heart echo tests in anti-natal care. The second new petition before us this morning is by Carol Sunox, and I welcome you here tonight. I can ask you to make a brief opening statement of no more than five minutes, and then we will move on to questions. I have never done any list before, so if I say anything in this, you know I don't know. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting me along to speak to the Petitions Committee. Back in 2007, I discovered in March that I was expecting a baby. Shot was an understatement. At the point, I was working full-time with women's aid, providing support to children who came to refuse due to domestic violence. I was also studying part-time for a postgraduate diploma in play therapy, so getting pregnant didn't feature in my plans. On 1 April, I was admitted to my local A&E with excursion and pain. After tests, I was told that I was suffering from ectopic pregnancy, and they believed that I was pregnant with twins, one in the womb and one in the full-time troupe. I remained in hospital over the next few days, and on 4 April, they decided that I needed surgery, and during the procedure, I lost the baby who was growing in my womb. At discharge, I was told that due to my age and the situation with me losing a full-time troupe, it would become increasingly difficult for me to get pregnant. In June 2007, my husband and my parents went on holiday for two weeks. On returning a few weeks later, I discovered that I was once again against all odds pregnant. I was now in a position to have my rainbow baby when I was very excited and happy. For many women, pregnancy brings various changes in the body, but after the first few weeks, many women flourish and bloom, they glow with a little life that's growing inside them. Only that never happened to me. From very early on, I had an awful pregnancy. Never did I glow or flourish, but I did have all the conditions that come with pregnancy, including heartburn, warning sickness, although that should be named all-day sickness. I was constantly tired and really struggling with the pregnancy. My treatment was constantly led due to my history, so visits to local maternity was very frequent. At that time, not only was I pregnant, but I was due to be married in November of 2007. My ankles had begun to swell at a very ugly stage in my pregnancy. I developed coli status. This is a body edge that affects everywhere 24-7, and is a sign of possible liver problems during pregnancy, but there is no treatment for it. The swelling in my ankles continued, and it got to a point that I had to wear a size 7 or an 8 in a shoe, a max size 5. I presented with the swelling at Antinatal Clinic on numerous occasions, but it was told all my conditions were due to being pregnant. You would always check baby's heartbeat, and I'd receive more ultrasounds than normal, but all was to check how my beautiful baby was doing. Never at any point did anyone think to check me. During the last few months of pregnancy, I was struggling more and more every day. I still had the severe swelling. I had trouble lying down and sleeping, so I had to prop myself up with pillows, and I went to see my GP as I felt I had some sort of chest infection. I was given antibiotics. I had a cough and noisy breathing. It got so bad that I in fact used my Hudson's inhaler to try and get a breath. I was really struggling. On 27 March 2008, at 10 p.m., I went into labour, one week early. My baby was born at 10.01 on Friday, 28 March. Soon after having my baby, I developed a sharp pain in my back. I couldn't continue to hold my newborn. I asked my mum to take him. The nurses came over and it was at that point that they knew something wasn't right. For the next three hours, I was sick, with extremely high blood pressure causing pain in my head. At that point, they were talking about many possibilities that could be the cause of my deterioration. They thought pre-eclampsia, help syndrome and also a blood clot. After many tests over the next few hours, they decided I would move to coronary care, as they suspected I'd suffered a cardiac episode. So 12 hours after giving birth to my angel, I was transferred leaving my baby with a midwife at the special care unit. In the morning, a cardiologist came to see me to tell me they believed I had developed postpartum cardiomyopathy. Peri or postpartum cardiomyopathy is a form of dilated cardiomyopathy that is described as the deterioration in cardiac function. It typically presents in the last few months of pregnancy and up to six months after. It normally causes a decrease of the left ventricular ejection fraction. This results in the heart muscle not being able to contract forcefully enough to pump adequate amounts of blood to vital organs, resulting in arrhythmias, blockage of blood vessels by clot and, in some cases, sudden cardiac death. PPCM's diagnosis is a diagnosis of exclusion, where millers have no prior history of heart disease and there's no other non-possible cause of heart failure. Unfortunately, many doctors dismiss the early symptom because they appear to be typical of normal pregnancy, yet early detection and treatment are critically important to the patient. Delays and diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased deaths and new mothers. Although many women would present with evidence of having a clot that's passing between the heart and other vital organs, causing such complications as a stroke, the blockage of an artery or sometimes a heart attack, this is why, during pregnancy, doctors should always hold high suspicions of PPCM and any peri or post-patient were persistent or unexplained symptoms occur. One of the most effective ways to diagnose PPCM is by having a BNP blood test. BNP is a naturally occurring sigling hormone in the blood and is produced by the human heart muscle. It simply shows that anything that increases mechanically stress in the heart or irritates the heart muscle will trigger the heart's pressure receptors to release BNP into the blood. Although increased BNP does not always signify heart failure and should never be used in isolation, it's a very effective indicator that other avenues need to be looked at. That can include an ECG. In other countries, there is also an early detection checklist. This is used as a point-scoring tool and can again be used in early detection when women present with unexplained symptoms. A quarter to a third of PPCM patients are young women who give birth for the first time. It's not one in every 1300 pregnant women who will develop PPCM. Today is not for me. It's too late for me. I can't have any more children, but I do have two beautiful nieces who will hopefully one day become mums. Every one of us in here today has a daughter, sister, friend, niece who has the potential of becoming a quing pregnant. Please don't let them experience what I did. After moving on to coronary care, I didn't see my son for 12 days. During this time, he became unwell with a conial atresium, which is extra bone grown over when he's not so sick and breathed properly. At one point, they were looking to transfer him to children's hospital. As a mum, this broke my heart. I missed out so much during the early time. The bonding between mother and child is so special and can never be replaced. My son was almost three weeks old before I got to take him home. Don't let this be a situation that other young mums experience. Having PPCM left me tired, underweight and I found it difficult to not only care for myself but also my son. Now, eight years down the line, I still take medication. Surely early detection is a must, and we must consider the possibility of being able to do, I know, PPCM early and effectively. I've got a checklist here that they use when they appear at the doctors. That's it. Thank you very much for that. Indeed, that was very, very helpful and very clear. What we'll do now is just ask you some questions, really, to clarify what you think are the best things that should be done as a consequence of your experience. The first thing that I would be interested in knowing is whether what you're asking for is that if somebody has symptoms, either unexplained, which may be PPCM, do you then get a diagnostic test as opposed to screening all pregnant women? Not every woman will present. There are things that are associated with pregnancy that present to PPCM, such as the swelling of the ankles, maybe shortness of breath at the end, and stuff like that. However, when women are at a point where they can't lie down, they've got to prop themselves up, I mean, as I'm saying, I went to the doctors saying, it's like I had a chest infection and it was heart failure. I was presenting me a lot of different things, so I think that even the point scoring checklist that they have is a list of five or six questions where they say, do you have problems breathing down one being the worst and five being okay? If it's over that point scoring of four or five, they then refer you on to get an ECG, which would then actually show them that the left side of that wasn't working. Do you think that there's a lack of awareness of the condition itself, which would mean that people wouldn't even know what to look for or that that might be the answer? When I had Kai and I was in, I was kept in the maternity delivery room because they didn't know what was wrong with me, and they had the paddles and stuff outside because they thought my heart was going to, you know, it was just a horrible time, but there was two midwives who sat with me, and the midwife said to me, we've never been with anybody who's had anything like this. They had never seen anything like it. So there would be an awareness raising question for health professionals, and do you think there's a more general point that pregnant women, the professionals, see the baby and not the mum? I do. I think to see the pregnant ladies being the vessel that's carrying this way, and the babies are so important, but there's no point in the vessel being okay if that's not going to be able to carry the baby for full term. The doctors, when you go in, I was so well throughout the full pregnancy and the swelling and stuff, and I was up and down to the maternity unit, and it was just, you know, they don't tell you about it when you go to your anti-natal classes, they don't say, look out for this, look out for that, you know, they tell you about all the nice things that happen, you know, you can say, or you might end up, but I mean, it was, I mean, I've got a friend who actually died in the November of 2007, she went to hospital complaining of chest pains and they were saying what's indigestion you've got, and he ended up, she had a heart attack and she died, and her baby was born, baby lived, but she died, and there was another woman who I speak to regularly on quite a lot of cardomyopathy website pages, and one woman's 21-year-old daughter died four weeks after a given birth, and they still didn't know until after she died that it was PPCM that she had, and there's so many women as well who end up needing, I mean, I've been lucky on medication and I can recover relatively quickly, but there's so many women as well who need to go on and get pacemakers and stuff fitted. Okay, I mean, I think that it's been an issue that's been raised in the Parliament before over a period of time around cardomyopathy and the heart condition. We're generally in awareness of GPs and so on, about what to look for at early stages and the whole question of screening of families and so on, which is a whole other area that we could look at, but I think that the points you've made have been very useful, Rona. Hello, Carol. Just to say, the European Society of Cardiology working group do recommend that women have ECGs, et cetera, at the early stages of pregnancy. Was it your opinion that the staff that were caring for you weren't aware of this? There was never ever going to be a possibility of you getting that at any time during your symptoms?  When you're, do you know, pregnancy's not an illness, you shouldn't be ill during your pregnancy, and when a woman is presenting as being ill, then they need to be looking at something, you know. So going back to what the canoeers think, it's really about awareness as well as the staff that, these are the guidelines that they should be following, and that's what you're trying to stress so that this does happen. There's so few cases identified. I'm just looking here at the numbers, they're so small, so presumably what we're saying here is that there's a lack of identification. There's a lot more, there's a lot more cases than they're actually identifying. Yep, the amount of women who I have speak to on these websites and stuff like that, who have gone on, had their baby, became extremely ill and not been diagnosed for many months after.  You typically find the onset is there way before that, but it's not being diagnosed to six months after it, after women have been readmitted into hospital, and then they've found they've started to look for other things because the pregnancy can't be used as an excuse for the symptoms that they're showing, so that's, and then by that time you've had six months being with your baby, you've been totally ill, tired, and then you've also got the possible risk of it being a sudden death, and it happens, it's, I mean, it does happen, it's normally just put down to sudden adult death, you know, and there's not a lot of, you know, stuff that's said about that, it's just done and that's it, but unfortunately for many families, you know, it's a bit, they'll lose the mum in their life. Okay. Anyone else? No. I think we've concluded our questions and wonder if we want to think about how we can take this petition forward. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask its view on it and then explain what we've heard today. I wonder if there's any value in, maybe, I don't know who would be the relevant medical professional board to ask them what they are. It works best to us to make the board for a first start. And whether GP's, if there's shared care, whether they're aware of it, could maybe take advice on who are the best people to ask what they are, what their expectation would be of any professional in the circumstances that you disagree with me. I think that that would be useful. Is that agreed then? Okay, so we'll write to the Scottish Government directly about their views on your petition, and we'll also look to professional medical bodies to see perhaps what they think could be done to ensure that your people don't end up in the situation that you've been in. So can I thank you very much for your attendance, and we'll suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes. Bring the meeting together again, and we now have to consider two further new petitions, and the first one is PE1600 on speed awareness courses. This next new petition is by John Chapman. Mr Chapman is calling for the introduction of speed awareness courses as an alternative to other penalties for drivers who are found to be speeding. Members will have had a chance to read the petition, the briefing note and an additional submission from Mr Chapman, so I would really just want to ask people's views on what action we wish to take on this petition. Yes, I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to request an update on the assessment of whether speed awareness courses would make an effective additional contribution to road safety in Scotland. No, I was just going to say maybe one of the automobile associations or the car. I'm not sure exactly what the name would be, but the RAC or someone, one of the people that do monitoring and things. We could contact the RAC and the organisation's tent to speak on that. There is something comparable as they're not round, particularly for young drivers, if they're reckless driving and they go on a refresher course. There's an advanced driving course, but this is a bit different. We probably need some expert views on it, I think. More and more now you're getting the opportunity to not get three points on your licence if you're willing to attend a speed awareness course. I'd be interested to see how that impacts. Okay, so I think if we can agree then with Angus MacDonald's suggestion that we do write to the Scottish Government to get an update on their assessment of the benefits of such an approach. Is that agreed? Yes. Okay, thank you very much. And we can then move on to petition 1601 on European beavers in Scotland. The final new petition today is by Andy Myles and relates to the prediction for populations of European beavers in Scotland. Again, members will have had a chance to read the petition and the briefing note, and I'd be welcome people's views. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that a number of NGOs have been expecting an imminent decision for some time on this. Certainly it had been expected that there would be announcements from the Scottish Government before Parliament was dissolved in the last session, so I think, as a matter of urgency, we should write to the Scottish Government to seek their views on the petition firstly and also get a timeline as to when they expect the announcement to be made because there's a number of people out there with vested interests who want to know. If that's agreed, I think that there is a sense that we want to know the response of the Scottish Government to the petition, but specifically on their own commitment to make an announcement that would be useful for that to be done sooner rather than later. That's agreed. Okay, thank you very much. If we can move on then. Agenda item 2. The second item on our agenda is consideration of 11 petitions that have been carried forward from session 4. For each petition, we have received a briefing note and copies of submissions that have been received since the petitions were considered by our predecessors. My intention is to go through each petition in turn and invite comments from members on the action that we may wish to take. We're very aware, I think, that in all of those there are still, obviously, the petitioners have strong views and I've retained communication with the committee on those matters. The first one that we're going to look at is petition 1319, Improving Youth Football in Scotland. The first continued petition is on Improving Youth Football in Scotland and it's from Willie Smith in Scotland. Perhaps before we move on to discuss the petition, I should let members know that I am aware of the petition from my time as MSP for Glasgow Pollock and have known Willie Smith for many years in that capacity, not just in relation to the petition itself but his work in youth football and specifically within that community. This is one of the oldest petitions that we have before us and I think that it's evident that a lot of useful work has been done on the petition. That said, I'm keen for us to make progress on the issues that remain outstanding and to be proactive in seeking views and information from relevant stakeholders. We can see that the SFA and the SPFL have outlined actions that they intend to take and we also have a response, of course, from the Scottish Government in a letter from the minister, Aileen Campbell. The suggestion made is that time is given to see how those measures work before considering external regulation. That is from the Government and the SFA and the SPFL. It would be useful to ask the Government and the SFA and the SPFL for information about a timetable for introducing those measures and assessing whether or not they are working. However, it is also fair to say that other stakeholders have a different view as to whether the measures that have been suggested adequately address the concerns raised in the petition. It would be useful to get views from the PFA Scotland and the Children's Commissioner, as well as organisations for youth and schools football. We know from correspondence that both the petitioner and others do not feel that the views of the Scottish Government and the SPFL reflect what is happening at this stage. I welcome any comments or suggestions from other members. I think that football in particular has an issue in the turnover of children at the age of 16 through football clubs and the way in which that is sometimes handled. It has always been a bit of a concern in identifying kids as young as 9, 10 or 11 years old and colour on an annual basis. I have a real concern on the impact that that has on the kids themselves and the ability to participate not just in football, but afterwards on how they can move on to other sports. It is a very general comment from me, but I do not think that the current way in which many football clubs deal with youth is particularly helpful. The petition and what is involved in it will help that. Is that not what it is trying to do? I think that it highlights or scratches the surface of what the issue is in this one here. I think that this is pertaining particularly to football, but the impact that it has across all activity. The kind of rejection that happens in football clubs for kids has been anecdotally shown to have quite a negative impact on youth across the board. I think that the focus—there has been a whole number of issues that have been raised clearly through the petition, but the very live issues now remain the ability of clubs to take young people on one-year contracts, which end up to be three-year contracts, where they are not being paid, but they are also not allowed to play for their local teams. I know that one of the things that exercise the petitioners is the idea that the club retains the right—even in the suggestions that have been made by the SFA and SPFL and the Scottish Government that they could still play for the clubs, but they are saying that they should be a welfare clause. If they give the football club a welfare clause, they are going to exercise that if they want to protect their investment. I think that the issue that you are referring to is bringing in a whole number of children in order to get one who you think might be a star, reject the rest and put them off sport. Does that not allow them to be involved in active sport? There is quite a lot of kids who notice that they are only allowed to play for the club, but they do not get a chance to play for the club. Kids of that age, what they want to do is kick a ball, and they do not get the opportunity to do that in a competitive environment. How we deal with that is that if they are not getting a game, they are sitting on the bench. If you are 13, 14, 15 years old, they are not going to sit on the bench. There has to be this welfare issue on the flip side of that, where they get the opportunity to play football. I am managing the tension of local football teams nurturing young people and then big clubs coming in to take them. There is a question about compensation, there is a lot of complicated issues there, but my sense is that, from the petitioners, they do not feel that in the responses that they have received, they are actually reflecting genuinely where those organisations are in terms of what is to happen next. In terms of actions, do you have specific proposals? I would agree with your suggestion that the relevant people are brought in and listened to, such as the PFA Scotland, the Scottish Schools Football Association, Youth Football and our children's young people's commissioner to give their views. We agreed that it would be worse while having an oral evidence session. It is such a huge issue. I also think that it might be an idea if we could give the clubs themselves an opportunity to put their case across. I am not suggesting that we bring in all of the PFL clubs in here, but one or two of them to understand what they are trying to do. My sense also is the tension for the SFA and the SPFL, and others will know more about this than me, that they are at the mercy of what their clubs want. They may have a policy, but it is going to be for the clubs collectively to agree to that, and that might be a slightly more challenging issue. I think that, outcome-wise, it is welfare of the children as it was paramount in this. Do the players union play a part in that? Not at that age, they do not. The players union is quoted in Eileen Campbell's letter as having been actively engaged, but I think that it would be worth checking with them what their level of engagement is. I think that it would be worthwhile, given the response that we have had from the SFA, the SPFL and the minister, to ask those other organisations how they would respond to that and take evidence. More information from the petitioners, as you have said, is from the Children and Young People's Commissioner, the PFA Scotland, the Scottish Youth Football Association, with a view to having an oral evidence session at the end of the stage. Yes, I totally agree with the consensus there, but I think that we can just check with the clerks that the letter dated 27 June from Rio grass roots is in public. Well, I think that clearly there is some concern from William Smith and Scott Robertson who are disputing a number of comments from the minister, particularly claims that the PFA Scotland has not been included in extensive discussions with Scottish Government officials. The letter goes on to raise other concerns with regard to statements that are in the minister's letter. I would be keen to have the minister's response to those disputed comments. That would be helpful to help move the situation forward. I think that that is another excellent suggestion. We are clear that this is something that we want to continue to look at and the gap between what the minister believes to be the case and what the petitioner and others believe to be the case is something that we want to explore further. Okay, thanks very much for that. If we can now move on to petition 1408, updating of pernish's anemia vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment. The second continued petition is an updating of pernish's anemia and vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment and is from Andrea MacArthur. This is also quite an old petition that has resulted in some post of action being taken by the Scottish Government. The petitioner has continued to correspond on what she feels are outstanding issues and are outlined in the briefing paper. I would be interested in members' views on what their action the committee should take. The traditional way of identifying this is just a straightforward blood test and red blood cell count. I welcome Elaine Smith to the committee. Thank you. It's just happened to know a bit about this and it is and actually it doesn't pick up for people who are very ill with it necessarily and it's quite related to other issues like the thyroid problems and the whole endocrinological system as well and it has some of the similar issues about diagnosis and treatment and not being picked up. Just to clarify, it's in the really bad cases of these that it's not being picked up and they're really ill. It depends what people would call really bad cases. For a lot of people the blood test just doesn't pick it up at all and it may be that they get iller and iller until finally. A lot of people are also going for private testing for the condition as well to make sure that it's being thoroughly explored and if you're on other vitamins as well like multivix and things then that can give a wrong reading from blood tests too. I'm not a huge expert, I'm not a doctor, but this is just my understanding because I have looked into it. I think that with anemia it's a red blood cell count. It's pernicious anemia though and it's in families. It can be a genetic thing. My grandfather had it, my aunt has it. The vitamin B12 symptoms basically just seem to be tiredness or can come across as tiredness. Sorry, I'm asking a question too. Sorry, convener, and I'm not a doctor. I think in the briefing as well that the petitioner has, I read it out of interest, the petitioner has outlined some of those symptoms like tiredness such that you wouldn't be able to work very similar to undiagnosed underactive thyroid actually. It's the second stage testing that's the question and following through and my understanding was that subsequent to the petition's committee's involvement the Scottish Hematology Society was involved in trying to draw up guidelines but the Scottish Hematology Society that you have the papers clearly they're not in a position to do such a substantial piece of work nor would we expect them to do so and we were grateful for their involvement so far. I suppose the question is really to ask the Scottish Government whether the summary document that was drafted by the Scottish Hematology Society has been finalised and provided to GPs in Scotland. That is about awareness to GPs of what they should do once there has been a diagnosis and whether that's going to be made, will be published when it's available to the public and I think it would be worth raising with the Scottish Government the specific concerns that have been raised by the petitioner regarding frequency of maintenance, injections and so on and the advice that provided GPs in Scotland on patients who consider the receiving and inadequate level of injections. There's clearly something there that we should ask the Scottish Government to look at further. That's agreeable. Many thanks for that and thanks to Elaine Smith for her advice. Can we move on then to petition 1463, effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment? The next continued petition is on thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment and is from Lorraine Cleaver. This is another petition that has been under consideration for several years and which the Scottish Government has done some work on and there are still areas that we could explore as outlined in the briefing paper and I would therefore invite members of use on how the petition should be progressed. I don't maybe, Elaine, if you want to say something first if someone has been involved with this petition has passed, it might help her. Thanks, convener, and thank you for calling me to speak. Can I say first of all that the previous petitions committee did a huge amount of work on the petition? They did seem to understand the issues very well and also apologies that Lorraine Cleaver can't be here this morning. I think that she's been to most other times that the petition was under consideration. I don't want to go over everything again with the petition but it is a big women's issue. It's predominantly women's that it affects. It's also a bit cross-cutting so it's not just health as such because issues like not being able to work through it so there's economic issues as well, there's issues of care and it's a cross-cutting issue but the fact that it does affect mainly women I think is hugely significant. It's a problem of diagnosis, it's a problem of treatment, it's a problem of... Sometimes patients are just parked on T4 which is the thyroxine, the synthetic thyroxine and although a lot of the studies or a lot of the medical profession will say that people do well on that. Actually a lot of people who are on it as I was for many years don't know they're not doing well because they are functioning but they don't realise that the fibromyalgia that they have, the difficulty getting up in the morning, the hair thinning, the dry skin, all sorts of things that go with it, they don't realise that actually they're not doing that well on their T4 because they are just managing to function. So for a lot of patients like myself on T3 that makes a huge difference. You might not be converting your T4 as well. Part of it too is whether or not desiccated thyroid hormone should be available. It's available in other countries and a lot of patients in this country are using the internet sometimes with problems of cloning of cards and things like that. They're buying it from abroad. Personally that's something that whilst tempted to do I wouldn't really want to do myself. It could be, GPs could prescribe it here but they are concerned there might be backlash repercussions. I think that's something that's really important.  It would be a shame I think if the Petitions Committee hadn't done all the work on it and I think you have about a hundred stories which we got together really quickly as well which tell the tale. I think it would be a shame if it were to be closed for example or even if it were to be referred to the health committee. I'm not saying that that wouldn't be an option but I do think that it's a bit more cross cutting particularly with the equality issues around women as well. I think that personally yes the Scottish Government could perhaps try to extrapolate, I'm looking at your recommendations or your action, that it could try to extrapolate the Scottish figures from the survey although I do think that the experience won't be particularly different to the rest of the UK. Personally I know that the petitioner would like if possible the committee to take evidence from Dr John Midgley who has got a lot of good knowledge and experience to share and is willing to come and speak to the committee. So I think that's something that the previous committee were thinking about and I would recommend that. So I think for me it would be ideal actually if the committee were able to do their inquiry or mini-inquiry into that but I don't know what your work is like in your timescales. Given that it's been going on so long it's been so interesting. The committee have taken a huge interest in it. I think that that for the petitioner would be something that would be worth doing and also it does take in other issues. It takes in fibromyalgia, people with ME for example. When you look at the figures there there are quite a high proportion of people with ME who have existed under active thyroid. There are other conditions perhaps that it might also be impacting on and maybe not being diagnosed. I would just I suppose want to make a play to the committee to build on the work that's been done over the past five years and see if there's any outcomes, any conclusions that you could reach. Angus? Thanks, convener. Clearly the petitions committee has been looking at this for some time and I think I'm on record in previous sessions of being unable to comprehend why desiccated thyroid hormone is not more freely available. It just seems beyond me why that's the case and particularly when you hear that the patients are having to buy the desiccated thyroid hormone themselves from abroad on the internet. It's beyond belief. I think that it's such an important issue that I would definitely be loath to close the petition and I think that there is merit in Eileen Smith's suggestion that there should be a mini inquiry. Perhaps we could keep the petition open until we have a look at our work programme and then bring it back to committee on the first available opportunity. I think that that seems sensible and we can look at it in terms of programme but in the meantime it would probably worthwhile flagging up to the Scottish Government really would be interested in what they are proposing to do particularly around the petition in light of the thyroid UK survey and whether they can take out the Scottish figures from that and whether they have any comments to send us but we would certainly look at the feasibility of what we could actually do whether it was an evidence-taking session or something more substantial in that. Andrew Mitchell, if we're having an evidence session, would be really useful so we can get some medical guidance on it. Is it worth contacting him? There may be already evidence there that he's went with one to share with the committee in written form before that? You have some in written form. I think that one of the things is that the round table way back at the beginning seemed to be a bit establishment focused and part of this is not thinking the way things have always been done. It's looking at it a bit differently and looking at other evidence that is actually out there. I just call it the medical establishment and I suppose big pharma that has the only products that can be used like T4. There's only one manufacturer of T3 in the whole of the UK, which is worrying as well. I think that just getting different evidence would be my plea. Okay, let's look at that in our consideration of our work programme but certainly write to the Scottish Government in the meantime. Okay, thanks very much. If we can move on to petition 1477 on gender-neutral human papillomavirus vaccination. This petition calls for the extension of the HPV vaccination programme to include boys. The session 4 committee's legacy paper invites us to consider this petition in light of an update from the Scottish Government on its position on implementing a gender-neutral HPV vaccine programme prior to any JCVI recommendation. That response has been received as has a submission from the petitioner and I'd be interested in members' views on the next stage. Yes, thanks, convener. I note the submission from the petitioner, Jamie Ray, on behalf of the throat cancer foundation that he has asked us to write to the Secretary of State for Health in England to highlight concern about the narranness of the JCVI's approach and requested that the Secretary of State explores ways to broaden its assessment of the evidence to take account of all issues pertinent to HPV vaccination policy. I don't think that it was in this committee's remit to write to the Secretary of State in England. I personally think that the committee has exhausted all avenues with regard to the issue and it might be the case that it should be referred to the health committee, but I am certainly open to it. I would support that. I think that it should be referred to the health committee. I am just not sure what other route we could go down and I take Angus's point about what our involvement with the health, public health in England would be, so I think that it really has to go back to our health committee. That seems like—we recognise the concerns within the petition, but we would take the view that this would be most usefully directed to the health committee to see how we would take it forward. The next petition is petition 1480, from Alzheimer's and dementia awareness, 1533, the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Those are two petitions that the session 4 committee agreed to consider together as they both concern fairness and social care charging. The first is by Amanda Coppall on behalf of the Frank Coppall Alzheimer's awareness campaign and the second is by Jeff Adamson on behalf of Scotland Against the Care Tax. The Government has been undertaking a review of fairness and social care charging and there is the option to seek an update on any action that has been taken in relation to the petitions, but again I would invite members' views on how we take this forward. For what it is worth, I think that there are huge issues here. I know that, in the election all, at least four of the five parties elected to this Parliament made general commitments around this without being specific. My colleague from the last Parliament, Siobhan McMahon, was pursuing a member's bill on the whole question of abolishing charges for care for people at home and non-residential social care charges. A wide range of organisations that we can see from the paper are very concerned about the question, both in terms of what it means and the reality in terms of people's care support, but also whether it is a question of human rights because some of it is determined by age. I do not know people's views on what we might want to do. Huge, huge issue. I can only think that it has to be referred to the Scottish Government to get the air input on it. I cannot see a clear route for us at the moment to go down, unless anyone else. I am glad that you said that before I did, because I am weighing through this. It is huge. Is that quite me? I think that the Grant Cropel campaign, the awareness campaign, did flag up what it can mean for people if they take this condition when they are younger, but also the whole question of care charging and the difference in levels of care charging in different parts of communities. Whether it is too much for the at this stage of the petitions committee to take on, it is far more than perhaps the work of this committee. It may be worthwhile in order to reflect the seriousness of the issues that have been flagged up to us. We want, at least as a first step, to ask the Scottish Government for an update on its review of fairness in social care charging and whether it is minded to take the action called for in both petitions given that it will have some manifestor commitments that are in this area. It would be interesting to know how they at least plan to take that forward. Is that appropriate? Okay, is that great? Thanks very much for that. If we can then move on to petition 1540, the permanent solution for the A83. The petition is calling for a permanent solution to the issues with landslides in A83 at the rest and be thankful. The briefing summarises where developments in the issue have got to so far, but it is clear that there are concerns still outstanding about the measures that are being taken. I should also indicate that the local constituency MSP, Mike Russell, has flagged up his support for the petition. I do think that it would be worthwhile to get an update on planned and proven works from the Government, but I wonder if members have a view on that or any other suggestions that have been made. There is no doubt that that has a massive impact on a local level, both for tourism, for the local community and for the local economy. Clearly, there is quite significant amount of work already being done. I welcome any comments. I am just to say, convener, that it has been the past practice on this committee that the fellow co-member particularly asks for a petition to be kept open and gives good reason for it. That request is usually accepted. I think that there is a lot of outstanding issues with regard to the A83 and that particular section of it, so it would be good to get a further response from the Scottish Government. Is that agreed? I think that it is in recognition of just how significant it is to the local economy and just with the issues that have already been flagged up, we want to see a signal that we do regard that is important and we would welcome a response from the Scottish Government. The next petition is residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. It is by Ann Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust. The Scottish Government has been working with the petitioner to identify measures that could be taken to address the issue raised in the petition and the most appropriate course of action at this stage, maybe to seek an update on the progress that has been made and, again, to address members' views. I would agree that we need to seek an update on progress. Is that agreed? It is a really important issue, and I think that that is our first quote to call, to find out what stage we are at with it. I think that there is an issue with the extent to which there is an assessment of the level of need and the effective assessment of the condition as well. If that is agreed, we can move on to petition 1 for the Scottish Government. We can move on to petition 1563 on sewage sludge spreading. P1563 called for a ban on the spreading of sewage sludge. The background to the issue and the work that has been taken on reviewing the use of sludge is summarising the briefing note. A number of commitments have been made and actions to take forward improvements in relation to the use of sludge, but it is clear that the Scottish Government does not support a ban on the use of sludge. I am aware that Angus MacDonald has an interest in his matter, so before I ask more generally if it would be useful for him to comment on issues raised. I certainly have a local interest, however. It is an issue that has been affecting other parts of the country as well—certainly the central belt and down Ayrshire way. I am keen to keep the petition open until we have had sight of the responses to consultations and that we have an indication of what legislative changes will be required or will be introduced. Since the submission of the petition, the petitioners have engaged with the Scottish Government, especially the environmental quality division, which has been welcomed by everyone. However, I would ask that the committee keep a watching brief on progress, as the issue is far from resolved. In short, convener, I do not want to let the Government off the hook on this one, and I do not want to let the Government off the hook on anything. I am particularly keen to make sure that we keep a watching brief on this one. We would like to keep the petition open, even though we recognise that the Scottish Government does not support what the petitioner is calling for. What is your view on the fact that the Scottish Government has said that it is planning to strengthen the regulatory framework in this area? Clearly, it is welcome, but the point is how much it is going to strengthen it. It might be that we could ask the petitioners to comment further on any progress that is made with strengthening the legislation, or another option would be that the petitioners come back with another petition in the future, if it were to be closed, but I would rather that was not the case. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government, given that this is a new Government and perhaps new conditions. Is that still their view? What is their position that they are going to do to strengthen the regulatory framework, and we could take a decision at that point? That would be fair. If we can move on to petition 1568 on the funding, access and promotion of the NHS CIC. The penultimate petition on our agenda today relates to the funding, access and promotion of the NHS centre for integrative care, which is located at Gartnavel in Glasgow. On the basis of the information that we have been provided with, it would be helpful to seek a bit of clarity from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde as the outcome of service reviews that have been undertaken in relation to the CIC. It might also be helpful to ask the Government to confirm whether any changes to the provision of services would change its view on providing national funding to the CIC and for an update on the national service for chronic pain. Sorry, convener, I did not want to jump in in front of the committee, so if you wish to take your committee members first. I think that I will inform. I was thinking of hearing what you have to say first. Thank you very much again. It is a petition that has been going on for some time in the previous committee. I did quite a bit of work on it. I came along to the petitions committee at times. I had constituency interests at the time because the CIC clinic in Coatbridge was being shut and I also had constituency interests who had an interest in the Glasgow situation as well. I still would wish to take an interest in it for the wider central Scotland region. I think that there has been information that is not quite matching up to what the evidence committee heard before as to what evidence is coming out now from the health board, for example. If this is lost as a national facility, that would be quite tragic for many people who depend on it. It is a shame about the outreach clinics as well because people with a lot of conditions can improve their conditions with that kind of assistance. It is not all just about homeopathic, which is a danger that people can fall into when they think about the centre for integrative care. It is far, far more than that and pain management etc is important, too. I was interested in reading the submission that you have from our colleague, Alex Neil, MSP, who was a previous health minister. That is a powerful submission on the issue. I know that you have a recommendation to refer it to the health and sport committee, and that is something that you would wish to consider. The committee has done an awful lot of work, and maybe even getting some further information first for this committee would be a good idea. It is important that we ask the health board for an update on exactly where we are with it now, and I agree with what Elaine is saying. We should refer it to the health and sport committee, but it is probably before that. Speak to the NHSGTC. I think that what we would be asking the health board for is information, just to clarify what their position is, because we do not have the authority to quiz them about decisions that they would make in terms of the budgets. However, the consequence of any decision that they make is about whether the Scottish Government is prepared to fund the centre. If they are not prepared to fund it, that would be an indication of health policy by the Scottish Government. I think that we should contact the health board and the Scottish Government about what their position is. After that, I think that we should refer it to the health and sport committee, because it feels to me that the issues around this are about the benefits and health terms of this approach. That would not necessarily be simply a view for the Public Petition Committee, but it is much more about where people judge them. I think that Elaine might be right that homeopathy is part of it and an argument around that, but the centre might be providing more than that that we are unaware of. I think that homeopathy is one of those treatments out there that is much debated. The other acupuncture counselling in dietary, there is nothing wrong with them at all. It seems to me that people are focusing on homeopathy as the reason to quote Dr Gourish that this is rather than all the other treatments that are available there. I do think that sometimes—I would not necessarily wish to suggest that it is deliberate—it is convenient sometimes. That offers a far wider range to people. It can make people economically active again, who went before. We are back to thyroid conditions, too. It can be very helpful for people with conditions such as fibromyalgia that comes through issues such as thyroid, so that those things again seem to tie in. It provides a hugely valuable service. It undoubtedly saves the economy and the health service, I would imagine, money with people being able to use those kinds of services and to gain out of it. I think that it is unfortunate. Personally, I think that there is a lot to be said for homeopathy in certain circumstances. If people are finding it helpful, even if that is only a placebo effect, surely that has got to be a good thing. However, I do think that it is controversial and there is a lot of focus on that, which actually detracts from other aspects. The people who use it are deeply, deeply concerned about losing services or not having the pain clinic, for example, which is promised. However, if I might just be bold to the committee and suggest that looking back at the evidence session that this committee had before, seeing what was said there and matching it up to what now seems to be being said, it might be an exercise, too, for the committee. I suggest that we confirm that we are right to the health board and just to clarify what is happening. Did the Scottish Government ask whether it will review its position in funding, and whether it is possible to change the provision of services, to refer it to the health and sports committee, but we should look back at it? Perhaps we could do that as part of our wayday, just to reflect on what we can do in the past, if that is useful. I suggest that we write to the health board to ask for the update and wait for its response before we go on to ask the Scottish Government anything, because what we need is clarification from them, so that when we go to the Government, we can say that this is what we have just been told. If we do it all at the one time, we are surmising what we haven't had anything back from the health board at this point. I suspect that the Scottish Government will have read the same reports that we have read about what the health board is planning to do, and we need to be in conversation with them. If they are not, I presume that it would prompt them to ask, and they might get a speedier response. I just want to expedite things. We do both at the same time, but we recognise that one follows up on the other. Okay. Is that agreed? I agree. Okay. Thanks very much. Finally, if we can move on to petition 1571 on food bank funding. The final petition we will consider today calls for direct funding of food banks. The Scottish Government does not support this call. I should, of course, indicate that the petitioner is John Beattie, who is also somebody with whom I have worked. He is someone who is involved in community activity in the governing area in Glasgow and has raised the issue of food banks with me directly, but I also clearly know through this petition. The Scottish Government does not support the call in the petition to directly fund food banks. I am interested in people's comments on the petition, and I think that maybe one suggestion might be to refer the petition to Social Security Committee to enable the issue of food banks to be considered in a wider policy context of social security, because it is clearly an informal way in which communities are protecting people, but obviously reflect need as well. I wonder if people have a view on that. I think that the salient point and the whole argument is that we are trying to get to a stage where nobody has to rely on food banks, and that came out in the evidence sessions. I would agree that we should refer it to the Social Security Committee. Without a view on whether they should be funded or not, but to say that in any social security system that is trying to reflect where need is, the growth of food banks tells us something. We are not necessarily totally clear what it does tell us, but it certainly tells us that there is a need there that has been met on a voluntary basis. It may even just simply reflect the failures and weaknesses of the current system that has been operated. If we are agreed, we would refer the petition to Social Security Committee with those comments. In that case, I think that we have come to the conclusion of our business. I want again to put on record our thanks to the witnesses who have come today, to all of our petitioners who have provided so much food for thought for today, and to members of the contributions and to the clerks for all the work that clearly is involved in bringing the agenda together. I wish everyone all the best in the recess and look forward to seeing you soon. I will close the meeting.


We don't set out to create a Super Bowl spot per se, but a Super Bowl experience. And that experience comes down to the art of storytelling and on multiple levels, multiple platforms with different audience who all embrace the Tomorrowseeker mindset. And we just wanna make sure that that story is told through many different channels and not just the week before, two weeks before the Super Bowl and in two weeks after, but really it's about the entire year. You do a Super Bowl spot to tell one of two things. Either you're launching a product or you're telling them something about the brand that you want them to remember, not just for the next 30 days, but you want them to remember for the rest of the year.


And it's the breakfast and plus TV Africa. Thanks for staying with us this morning. Let's look at the threats by telecommunication companies to withdraw their services due to the debts being owed by banks. However, the Association of Licensed Telecommunication Operators of Nigeria says the accumulated debt from unstructured supplementary service data, that's the USSD, owed to them by banks, rose to 80 billion as of November 2022. And now you're threatening to withdraw your services. Don't forget we are moving towards a cashless society. But this morning we have a guest joining us via Zoom, engineer Ike Nnamani, he's the President Association of Telecommunication Companies of Nigeria at KON. Thank you so much, Dr. Ike Nnamani. I beg your pardon. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Nice to be here with you all. All right then. Let me ask you why is the Association making this threat at this time very critical for economy? You know that we're going cashless with the CBN policy. Why now? It's not a case of making threats. It's just letting the general public know that if something is not done and the payments are not made by the banks, unfortunately the telecom settle may not be able to provide this service anymore. And the reason we're making this known to the general public is at the end of the day, it is the subscribers that may suffer from it. The reason being that this is not an issue that just came up, it's been on for many years now. In 2019 there was, when the debt was still about 32 billion, there was agreement rich in terms of how the banks were to pay it. They ignored that agreement, didn't honor it. In 2021 by this time the debt has risen to about 42 billion. Another agreement was rich that evolved the CBN, the Telecom Regulator NCCC and the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy. At that point we all felt a final arrangement has been reached that will ensure these debts are paid. Unfortunately the banks again have totally ignored the agreement and refused to honor it. And the consequence of that is that the debt have now risen to about 80 billion. And our consign is that with the trend and the way the banks are approaching the issue, there is clearly no means or willingness for them to pay and unfortunately it will simply lead to an inability of the telcos to be able to offer this service. Now two things is important here. The banks already have the money because they've already debited the customers account for this money. So the money is sitting with the bank. We're not asking for something that the banks not already have with them, right? The second one is that there's an agreement that this payment should be made. And for some reason the bank just refused to make the payment. So it's good to pull this in perspective. It's not like we are threatening the industry or the country. We're simply making it known that unfortunately we are running out of the resource to continue providing the service that is meant to be paid for, which for some reason the banks have simply refused to pay. So we understand all of this challenge and all that you have said. This conversation, like you had mentioned earlier, started since 2019. I'm asking why now? Why haven't the... Because we have the ability to provide the service. It costs money to provide the service as you know very well. The TECOM industry has been suffering from all kinds of challenges, lack of access to forest, high costs of operations due to high costs of diesel. It just got to the point where the status quo is not sustainable. Unfortunately that's just the status of the situation. The TECOM industry cannot continue to provide the service when it's not being paid for, especially when the banks are sitting on the money. So do you have an idea why this bank or the banks have refused to remit this money just as you said that they have the money? Our hope and expectation is that with the awareness being created in the general public about this problem, part venture, maybe the next section you should have, we should be with somebody from the banking sector so that they can probably explain to Nigerians why they have willfully refused to pay this debt, right? So we don't know. Only the banks can explain why they willfully refused to pay this debt. So have your association made any efforts? What has the APEX Bank done about this? I'm talking about the CBN. At the end, do you know of the situation? What approach have you taken to ensure that the association ensures that these funds have been remitted by the banks? The agreement that was drawn up, the last one being 2021, had the CBN, had the banks involved, had the TECOM regulator, had the Ministry of Communication, every case that was involved in drawing up that agreement. So they are definitely aware that these payments and the terms for it was agreed and signed up by every party. So it's just a case of one of the parties to the agreement for whatever reason, which, as I said earlier, they're in a better position to explain to the general public, simply refusing to honor the agreement. We all know the state of the country. If you take a facility from any of the banks today and for whatever reason you refuse to pay, they're not going to sit back. They come after you. They see your asset that you pledge as collateral, right? The banks are very aggressive when they seek to recover their money being pulled by the general public. Unfortunately, we don't see the same proactive step by them when they are the ones going to pay their bills and it's most unfortunate because it has a direct impact on the quality of service being offered in the country. Okay. I'm still trying to understand. You say that there are several persons who are part of this agreement and the assumption is that everybody knows, but has the association or your association taken deliberate steps to communicate with these parties who were party to the agreement? Take it from me over and over again. The mask for payment has been escalated to every key stakeholder, including everybody that was involved in drawing up the agreement and we've just got no response. So let's have this conversation now. What will be the implication of the withdrawal of your services on the economy, especially now that we're going cashless? To start with, again, we are hoping it doesn't lead to that, but unfortunately that is where we are headed. If nothing is done, our hope and expectation is if the right things are done, then this can seriously be avoided because to the best of our knowledge, the users of this service have already been debited. So the money is sitting with the banks. It's not like the money is not already with the banks, right? So let's hope it doesn't get to this ultimately, that they are listing and able to do what they need to do. But if they don't, as you clearly know, people will simply notice that the payment channels that are currently available to them are no longer available, right? You'll not be able to do some of the bank transfers you can do on your phone, your mobile money kind of transaction, some of it will cease. And a few other services that makes life covenant and make the financial industry more beneficial to the users will simply not be there. And I'm a little puzzled that the banks are really not taking this seriously, realizing the fact that this is a critical part of their business, right? You would assume that for something that's important to them, that they would take it more seriously than they tend to take. Maybe they've just taken it for granted that the tech home industry would somehow keep offering the service and nobody had to collect it. That's been owed. But unfortunately, we are at that point where currently we don't have the resources to continue supporting this service if not paid for. Well, there's this popular saying that, you know, the judiciary is the hope of the common man. Why haven't you or your association approached, you know, the court of law? Between me and you, it's easier if you can't offer the service, even if the court actually to offer it, you just don't have the ability to.  What I'm actually saying is that we are getting to that point where we will not be able to offer that service. We won't have the resources. It costs this system that you use. You have to pay the vendors that supply you that system. And if you can't pay the vendors, you won't get support for it. We are talking about technical support for the platforms that we use to offer the service. We've not been able to pay the vendors because the banks have not paid. It's not a case of going to the court or anything. It's purely a case of inability to offer the service going forward. It's not like we can offer the service and we'll choose not to offer it. We are getting to the point where we simply won't be able to offer the service. And that is why we are trying to raise this call it alarm for the rest of the country to be aware that something is about to happen, which can be addressed at this point. Don't get me wrong. It's not that we will be able to offer the service. They will choose not to offer it. We will simply not be able to offer the service because there will be technical support because the vendors that supply the technology have not been paid. Now, I understand that which you have said, but it's a concern. You say that an agreement was reached and that the agreement has not been respected. Now you're being owed. The banks are owing up to the tune of 80 billion narrow. And I'm saying, is that not worth seeking a redress in a court of competence jurisdiction? I don't think there's any bigger court of jurisdiction than banks simply honoring their adepts. It's as simple as that. People should be honorable enough to pay their adepts, especially when they're in a position to pay it. Okay. We'll leave it at that. Let me also further ask. You have mentioned that the implication would be that users just like myself and yourself as well will not be able to be able to use this services where you transfer funds from one person to another person. What about poachesses? Can people still buy data, pay for different services? Is that also going to be affected? Any of those services that you see the base, like some of the ones you've listed, will be affected. So it's going to cut across the whole chain of services that today people enjoy. And again, why we find this a little puzzling is that the banks are probably the biggest beneficiary of this. This is why they use this service. That is why they use it because it helps bridge the gap between the traditional banking system and the digital economy. And in our society, we are surprised as any other subscriber on the street why the banks are taking this route, knowing how critical this is, not just to the users, but also to the banks themselves. All right. We have to leave it at this. I foresee a situation. From all that you have said, it's probably that we're going back to the stone age. Maybe if you want to buy data or recharge your mobile phone, you have to go back to look for the cards. And this is going to be very dramatic if that happens. But we're hoping that the banks would respond to your consent and relevant quarters would ensure that the common man doesn't suffer because that's where we're heading towards the common man's suffering in 2023. Paraventure that happens. Thank you so much. Okay, go ahead. It's totally avoidable and we hope the banks will do the writing. Again, I repeat, this money is sitting with the banks and they just need to pay it because they've already debited the customers' accounts for this money. I think the banks are just using the money for some other stuff, which is not fair, not fair to the customers, not also fair to the tech cause. And one would just be wondering if there are no other means to get the banks to comply with an agreement. Although you say it's just honorable that if you get into an agreement, you owe a person or an organization, it's just important that you pay up. But however, fingers crossed, let's see how all of this pans out. Thank you so much, engineer E.K. Nnamani for being part of the show this morning. Thank you. Thanks for having me. All right, then. And that's the size of it. We've been speaking with engineer E.K. Nnamani. He's a president association of telecommunication companies of Niger at KON. We do appreciate your time this morning on the show. That's what we ended. We'll return tomorrow with more interesting lineup and conversation. If you missed that on any part of the conversation, it's fine because you can catch up on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. And you can also subscribe to our YouTube channel where at Plus TV Africa and Plus TV Africa Lifestyle. My name is Messier Boko. Have a fantastic Thursday morning.


A 24 year old man who was originally from Bemidji has died in a motorcycle crash in Fargo. Authorities say Tanner Bailey was headed south on 45th Street south in Fargo yesterday when he crashed into a car exiting I-94. Police say the car had the green light at the time of the accident and no one in the car was hurt. Bailey, who had been living most recently in Fargo, died in that crash. According to a report from Forum News Services, court records show that Bailey was convicted of 15 traffic violations including speeding, exhibition driving, following too closely, failing to yield and disregarding a stop sign. One of those violations came in February 2016 when according to the North Dakota Highway Patrol, Bailey reached 140 miles per hour in a 75 mile per hour zone on I-94 near the same exit he crashed at yesterday. This is an acceptable contribution to Lakeland Public Television.