 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 20th meeting of 2015 of the Public Petitions Committee. Can I ask everyone present to please turn off their mobile phones and the other electronic equipment as it interferes with the sound system? Apologies have been received this morning from David Torrance and Jackson Carlaw. For that reason, to replace David Torrance, Jim Eadie is in attendance. Welcome to the committee, Jim. Angus MacDonald is moving amendments to the Education and Culture Committee, but he will join us if that we get to that point in the meeting. Our first agenda item this morning is to seek agreement on taking agenda item 3 on witness expenses in private, as the committee agreed. That brings us to agenda item 2, which is consideration of PE1463 by Lorraine Cleaver of effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment. We were taking evidence from the petitioner, but I am also delighted to say that we are joined by Elaine Smith, MSP, who has an interest in the petition. However, we are going to hear first from Lorraine Cleaver of opening the meeting up to you to speak to us for two or three minutes, and then we will take questions, if that is okay. Over to you. Thank you, convener, and thanks to the committee for letting me speak today. As you know, it has been almost three years since I lodged this petition with two co-petitioners who have now left. I am a bit concerned that the petitions came to a kind of impasse because at the last meeting it was agreed that sign would look into doing a piece of work for guidelines into this illness. As I noted in my submission to you last week, I had a meeting with sign because I do have concerns about guidelines. I have concerns that guidelines already are fraught with problems for many, many illnesses because it is not personalised medicine. It somewhat puts you in a box. I think that I was right to have those concerns because it was also in the press a few months back that some of the people working on the guidelines committee have financial conflicts of interest or financial interests. We had quite an intensive meeting. I think that the upshot of that was that guidelines will do a sweep of all the current evidence that exists. Although there is really good evidence backing my petition, the volume that is there would be drowned out by the current older evidence. It could end up that we would have the same old same old at the end of a five-year project. It was agreed that we would work, hopefully, with the Royal College of GPs in Scotland and produce a kind of best practice document. Essentially, that would only be doing what should already be done. It is not actually going to achieve anything new that I asked for in the petition. It would simply be flagging up for GPs that, if a patient comes to you with continued problems on thyroxin, they would do this, this, this and that. Those things already exist, but they have never been adhered to and never been noticed. That piece of work would be really useful for 80 per cent of the population with thyroid problems because they go back to the doctor with odd symptoms and the doctors are not aware of what they should be doing next, checking their B12 levels, checking their iron cortisol, etc. However, it does absolutely nothing to address the people who have no ability to use level thyroxin, the one and only NHS prescribed medication. That is according to the Royal College of Physicians 5-10 per cent. We actually think that it is a lot higher. In my experience, it is vastly higher than that. This piece of work that Sine will conduct will never touch those people. That was the entire reason that I came to the Petitions Committee. Quite apart from that, it does not address the fact that the medication that I need to stay alive is not available on the NHS, it is not licensed in this country and that is a job for the MHRA. I do not know if you would call that Alex Neil came here a few years back, a year and a half, two years ago and gave evidence about that situation and acknowledged that it was the MHRA's job to look into licensing, but if we got independence, maybe that situation would change. Of course, it has not changed, but it makes me concerned that we have a Scottish NHS and yet we have no method for looking into licensing new drugs for our Scottish patients. I urge the committee to have one more round-table meeting to look again at the fresh evidence that I have discussed for those 10 to 20 per cent of people that do not recover and to look at the licensing situation because the European Parliament has closed down my petition saying that it is up to the MHRA. We are just not moving forward anyway. Yes, I know why it is not being looked at because it is a natural product that I am looking for and a natural product from nature cannot be patented, so there is not a great will to put a lot of money into doing research. As the late Dr Skinner said, there is something rather disingenuous that we have to prove that something that was used for 80 years and was cast aside and removed from the BNF in favour of a new synthetic that did not have to prove its metal, we are proving a negative and that is a ridiculous position to be in. We are costing the NHS billions. The drugs that we are looking for are cheap. There is no reason why Scotland cannot conduct a trial comparing the old natural thyroid with the relatively new level thyroxin that has given all those problems. To sum up, I urge the committee not to close the petition because in three years ultimately all that we have achieved is a piece of work with sign that has not began, may take two years and will only address the patience that I was never campaigning on behalf of. Thank you very much for bringing us up to speed with how things are. I will come to Elaine first because you have had a long standing interest in that, Elaine. Do you want to add some comments before I open up to the committee to ask a question? Thank you very much, convener. At Lorraine, as she says, has been working on this now for over three years. The committee has been looking at it. There was a listening exercise as well that the Government was conducting. I do not think that we have had anything back from that yet. Basically, the bottom line to me is that there are a lot of patients in Scotland who are not getting the right treatment. Some of them do not even know that they are not. There are patients who should be on even level thyroxine, who are deemed as being borderline, for example. I know many of them, and they are not even getting the medicine. The whole situation around thyroid medication is frankly a bit of a mess, and I think that it needs much more work done on it. More research needs to be done to show that this is what is happening. I guess that the bottom line is that I would not be sitting here talking to the committee if I had not been able, even though I was very ill. I was able to push my case with my GP to get to a consultant, to get to the right consultant, who was willing to try me out on T3 and basically brought me back to life. I have said that to the committee before, and that is the bottom line. I think that it is a shame that there are so many other people out there who are not getting that opportunity. A, their GP is maybe not referring them, and they are not getting to the right consultant. The committee, a wee while back, had a number of stories that we put together in a hurry. I think that there were about 50 stories, which, if you read them, will basically back up what I am saying here, and will tell you the situation that people find themselves in. It is also predominantly an issue for women, although not exclusively, so it is a gender issue as well. I think that there is a lot that could be done in NHS Scotland. Personally, I would like to see the natural-descaded thyroid available when people are not having to go to America and buy their prescriptions. I think that I might do well on that. I am personally not willing to go and do that. I prefer to just work with my consultant, and at the moment she will not prescribe it because of the situation that she may find herself in. Obviously, the committee does not have a lot of time left. I would certainly support Lorraine's request of you for another round table meeting if you have time to do that. Certainly, a call for evidence could produce a lot more than the evidence that I gave you of the nearly 50 stories. If the committee called for evidence, you would get hundreds of stories. If you cannot do that and you cannot fit it in, then I do not think that, for me, I would make a plea that you do not close the petition, that you put it in the legacy paper and that you request that the next petitions committee look further into this to see how they could take it forward. Before I go to the committee members, I want to get absolutely clarified. The best practice document, would that be purely for that 5 to 10 per cent that has been identified as the patient for whom the current treatment does not work? In essence, for the everyday situation that every GP finds, which is a patient's life with their oxen, but they come back and say, I don't feel this is working, I don't feel great, I've still got all these symptoms. Where does this 5 to 10 per cent come from? It's quoted in the Royal College of Physicians documents, but other people say 16 per cent. The IROID UK's survey for the Scottish Government says higher. It's for everybody with continued symptoms that's gone back to the GP. Within that figure of people with symptoms, there will be a percentage that just cannot tolerate the one NHS drug, and yet there is no provision for those people. It's acknowledged that there's a percentage that can't convert it in their body, but there's absolutely no provision for what to do with them, so they're all getting stuck on antidepressants. This document would be useful, because I think that GPs try very hard with us heart-sync patients, but, ultimately, they don't have a document to refer to, but it still won't be far reaching enough, because it won't offer them the medication that many of us use, T3 or natural thyroid, which brought me back from the dead. I forgot to say when I was speaking, convener, I hope you don't mind, that I know that you were notified by the coroner about thyroid suicide last year, and it wasn't put on the website, but I'm sure it's lodged within the documents. I've received probably about 40 similar letters from people's family who have committed suicide because of the appalling way that illness is treated, and I just want to take up with Elaine's suggestion that if you could call for evidence, we have a shocking amount to back this claim. Just to clarify on that issue, because it relates to a specific set of circumstances involving an individual. While committee members might find it useful to have it circulated just for fullness of information, it could never be put on our website. I hope that that helps to clarify that situation. The colleagues have other questions. I've come to Gonzala Nygian. Good morning. I think that the fact that you said that there's a listing document being put together by the Scottish Government itself, is that what you said? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. The listing exercise? Yes. Who's actually carrying that out? The Scottish Government, and that was last March or April, so they were probably running late coming back with the results of that, but what they did was they requested a charity called Thyroid UK conduct a survey of patients to get their viewpoints on how they've been treated, and the results of that survey are in, and they're back with the Scottish Government, so I don't know what the next move is, but the results of that were quite astonishing, really, at how long people are waiting for diagnosis, and how well they remain when they're on a level without oxen. Cynon, I'm quite happy to continue the petition. I think it's important that we get all the information that everybody need, and if we don't have time ourselves, we could pause it forward for the next committee to make it. I have a discussion about what to do at the end of the questions. Do you want to come to you first? Thank you, convener. I just wanted to seek some clarification so that I've understood the issues correctly. There is a medication available called T3, which 5 to 10 per cent of patients do not respond to, but who may benefit from the alternative. 5 to 10 per cent, allegedly, don't respond to level through oxen, the standard drug, and they request either T3 or natural thyroid. Okay, so I'm just trying to understand what the issues are in terms of access to treatment, because clearly that's something— No, that's a very valid question. If the manufacturer is saying, and the Scottish Government is saying that there are no supply issues, what are the barriers to treatment? Well, I don't know where they get that from, because we've had three supply issues in the past three years that have been noted by the MHRA. The information that the committee has received, if I've understood it correctly, states that the Scottish Government was not aware of any T3 supply issues in 2015, and the manufacturer Amco has advised that they are working on an improvement to the manufacturing process, and they are committed to ensuring a good supply in the future, which of course suggests that there are issues still to be overcome. Do you just clarify that area for us? Yes, sure, because they're the only manufacturer of the drug in the UK, which is why they can hold the NHS to ransom and charge over £100 for 28 tablets. That issue was also brought up at a previous meeting here, and nothing's changed. The NHS is paying over the odds for this medication, which is available for two euros in Europe. Cost is an issue. GPs don't want to prescribe it for cost. GPs are not actually supposed to prescribe it. They're supposed to refer you to a consultant endocrinologist, and, of course, with cost-cutting, they don't want to. They make the opening gambit in endocrinologists by email and are told immediately that no, no, their thyroid levels are fine, it must be something else, and they're not then forwarded to the endocrinologist, so they never really get the T3 that they need, and if they do get it, they never get enough. So there are so many problems in every area. Did you just complete this? Can I just ask if you had any discussions with either the manufacturer or the MHRA about overcoming these issues? Yes, I have repeatedly contacted the MHRA Andy Farmer, Kerry, who I think I've had three different names in three years, and I'm just consistently told that because they are one company making it, they have to recalibrate all their machinery when they're doing a manufacturer run. And so they forecast what they'll need, and if that doesn't meet the need, then it's another several months before they're ready to recalibrate and make that batch again. So that is a danger of having one manufacturer in the country for one medication, which isn't just used for thyroid patients, it's used in cardiac patients and in heart failure, so it's quite a serious medication. Okay, thank you. Okay, Elaine, you want it too, Meg? Thanks, convener. Just on the back of what Jim was asking, could I possibly ask Lorraine just to go through for us the difference between T4 and T3, the conversion issues, and also the problems with testing, the lab testing of the results, and why perhaps Lorraine could tell us why other countries have different ranges for the testing results that might result in a different prescription in this country? Thank you, Elaine, yes. I feel that when I'm sitting here speaking to you, you're looking for the gist of the problem, and in fact, there are problems with obtaining the medication, there are problems getting referred to a specialist, there are problems passing the test to be diagnosed with hypothyroid, because in this country we have set a reference range of 10 unless you get to the magic figure of 10, you're not treated in America. It's sometimes three, sometimes four, sometimes 2.5. Different cities have different reference ranges, so there's no parity across the board for whether you would be lucky enough to get diagnosed. So while you're waiting for that diagnosis, you can be diagnosed depressed, or fibromyalgia, or some other inaccurate result. Sorry, what was the other question, yes, Neil? It was just to explain the difference between T4 and T3. The 5 to 10 per cent are actually people who do better on T3 or dedicated thyroid. It's about the T4 and the T3 and the difference. Because this medicationally with the rocks and that everyone is standard offered is T4, and it's synthetic and it's not an active hormone, your body, your liver, your gut, peripheral tissue must convert it into T3 to be active. There are deodorant defects, genetic defects, where people can't convert it. There are many other reasons why you wouldn't, because you might have pituitary issues or cortisol issues or iron deficiency, many reasons. And they're just never checked when you repeatedly go back to a doctor and say, no, I don't feel well. It's never converted, but it will make your blood test look hunky-dory, it will make everything look fine, it will lower your TSH and it will make everything look fine to the untrained eye. So we're never getting diagnosed, we're never getting sufficient treatment, and we're not getting the correct medication that we need. When you have complete thyroid failure, your thyroid is no longer able to produce five things, T1, 2, 3, 4 and calcitonin, and in the NHS we're giving people one thing, not five, and we're giving them a misynthetic hormone that not everybody can convert. In fact, I think this is total medical negligence, because we know for a fact what the thyroid produced when it was functioning, and we give them one out of five things and tell them that that's sufficient. When they removed my thyroid gland, they said, we'll replace everything that it used to make, but they didn't. There was a reason I became obese and bald and suicidal. There's a reason for people taking their lives, and it's not depression, it's not in their head, it's not fibromyalgia, it's simply a lack of thyroid hormone. John Lennon, we have considered the issue as a committee for a couple of years, and we thought that we would resolve some of the issues, and clearly we haven't resolved the issue about supply T3 and the regularity of the supply T3. We thought that it had been resolved, clearly what we're hearing this morning, it hasn't been resolved. You've indicated that there's only one manufacturer of T3 in the UK. Could you tell us how many manufacturers of T3 there are in Europe? Not off the top of my head, John, but there are certainly more than five in mainland Europe, and I happen to know that patients are now booking their holidays to Turkey or elsewhere just to come across some T3 medication when it's either in short supply here or they've just refused it due to cost. That is an issue now. The drug is available, T3 is available in Europe and manufactured in Europe to European standards, yet we seem to have a situation with MHRA saying that we can only have one manufacturer in the UK supplying that drug and they're not prepared to go elsewhere to procure that drug. Yes, although when there was quite a lengthy shortage last year they were prepared to go to Europe because they had to supply the drug for these patients, so the loophole was opened when it had to be. It's definitely not best practice for the NHS to be overpaying to one manufacturer in the UK, but it also doesn't address my need for natural thyroid and that ultimately was the reason that I wanted to petition all those years ago. I don't want the next 20, 30 years of my life to be worried sick about being able to import the only medication that I can take. I have tried the NHS T3, the live with the rocks and my own endocrinologist acknowledges that it's I'm just not able to tolerate it at all and he asked my GP which she considered prescribing it because lots of his patients were recovering and it was high time that Scotland conducted some trials into this because it previously had a fantastic record and I think his words were it's more than my job's worth to prescribe it. That's the next question, was the natural desiccated thyroid. Who manufactures that and is it manufactured in the UK, Europe or is it only manufactured in the States? It seems to be only the States although some people are sourcing some that's made in Thailand, but the States is where I sourced mine and it's well controlled by the United States Pharmacopia and it's safe, but it's still not safe for me to be buying drugs online. I don't care what anyone says, this is a ridiculous situation in 21st century NHS Scotland. And there's no manufacturer of natural desiccated thyroid in the UK or Europe. You're not that I'm aware of, no. Right. Convener, clearly this is an issue about patient care and treatment and clearly I thought we had resolved it with the previous cabinet secretary coming along and giving us assurances in relation to sign guidelines, MHRC and others, but I'll make a suggestion at the end of the questions on how we take this forward. To be honest with you, John, I think we've reached that point and I don't have any other questions, so Han Sal has already made that one. Sure, John. You seem to touch your previous statement on the issue around safety. Can I just point to the letter that the committee has received from an official within the Scottish Government that says in relation to describing of desiccated thyroid hormone treatment, it has felt that there is insufficient evidence of benefit and lack of risk at present to support the prescribing of thyroid extract and there are alternatives which have a licence and safety data, but what you seem to be suggesting in terms of the availability of desiccated thyroid hormone treatment in the United States is that there probably would be quite a lot of data available to establish whether or not there was risk of patients. It depends by. I know what you're saying, but I've just found out. It's only why the Scottish Government would say, what the official would say, that there was a lack of safety data. Lack of evidence. When the fact was actually quite, you would think of that in North America, which is the biggest market for licensed medicines, that they would be built up over time quite a lot of data on whether the medication works or what safety profile of the medicine is and so on. There is plenty of data. There is over 100 years of data that is safe and effective, whether it's peer reviewed, medically collated data, I don't know. I actually don't believe it's even licensed in the States, although it's still manufacturer there and it's still used commonly. There used to be the belief that it was a grandfathered drug because it had existed for so long that it was just granted a safe status and it's continued use was no problem. I'm not even sure that it is licensed in the States, but it's regularly prescribed. The FDA do have a safety profile on it and it has fewer safety recalls than any Levithoroxone or any Lioth ironing. I see what the Scottish Government are saying is that we've got a lack of a body of evidence backing up against that, but when Levithoroxone was introduced in the 60s and 70s, it wasn't trialled on females or it wasn't trialled on a large amount of patients. It was simply introduced and I think I've made quite a few comments over the past three years about that. I have continually asked the MHRA, the European Medicines Agency, whoever I could think of. I've asked them, can I see this safety data for Levithoroxone? It doesn't exist. It was introduced against the only medication, which was natural thyroid. It was introduced and now we're being asked to prove that the 70 years previously proved that that was a safe period. I don't know how you can prove a negative, but nobody is prepared to do the studies now because, like I say, there's no money in a natural product, but it's a heck of a saving for the NHS. That's how we're going to do it. I take it from what colleagues are saying that there's no desire to close this petition. I think that the evidence that we've heard this morning raises more questions that we need to pursue. Hanzala indicated an area that we need to go back to to the Scottish Government to ask questions. I was going to suggest that we invite the new cabinet secretary for health along to give evidence, particularly in light of the listening exercise report that was supposed to have been produced. I think that we could ask the cabinet secretary to come along and give us the feedback from that exercise to answer some of the questions that have been raised today, particularly the on-going problem with the supply of T3 in the UK. I also look at the issue in terms of the natural alternatives that could be available, because there is clearly an issue that Lorraine has highlighted that we have figures that anything up to 16 per cent plus could benefit, but the reality is that for many patients if they don't know if they're not on Elaine Smith, who's a determined individual who goes forward and argues whether GP and argues to get referred to the right consultant, then we could have many people, particularly women, out there in society at the present moment, still struggling to get the treatment they need and the best treatment that gives them a quality of life that we'd all expect. I think that it would be useful, in my opinion, to bring along the cabinet secretary, because it has been, I think, two years since we've had the cabinet secretary here, and to answer some of those questions before we start moving on to the possibility of doing our own inquiry, which might be slightly time-barbed because of the upcoming elections. That's a good suggestion, and I should certainly invite the cabinet secretary to see if she takes the same position as her predecessor in relation to the comment that you outlined earlier about where we could be in the future. We're in a different place when he wanted us to be, but that doesn't mean that things can't be taken forward. I don't always buy into this idea that the wand of milk or honey would have arrived next year, but we're certainly able to test that theory if we get the cabinet secretary in front of us and she can answer the questions whether she agrees with the previous incumbent on that, Jim. I'll just add one thing. Some of the committee members have changed since the stories that were put together have been submitted to the committee. I wonder if they could be recirculated to the committee because they give an overview of what people are suffering, what they're going through and maybe even submitted to the cabinet secretary before she comes to give evidence, because although they were put together in a hurry, I think that they give a good indication across the country of what's happening to people. I think that they were already available to committee members, but we'll certainly take up a suggestion for those that might find that useful. We'll take it forward on that basis and thanks to Lorraine Gweaver for coming again this morning. I'll suspend for a couple of minutes until we change over. The next petition is from Margaret McAnne's on-Saint Margaret of Scotland Hospice. It's PE1105. In order to discuss this petition, I welcome Gil Paterson, the constituency interest in the petition and someone who's pursued it for the duration of the time that's been considered by the committee. Gil, do you want to make some comments? I would like to thank the committee again for the decision that took the last time that the petition was before you. I think that the fact that the two parties will be sitting down to discuss this matter indicates the decision that the committee made, reminding you that the Government had recommended that this petition be closed. I asked that it shouldn't be. I gave some rationale why that should take place. The committee had its own views also. I think that the fact that the committee took that decision, the result that we've got now, is because of that decision. I wonder and worry if what would have happened if the committee had closed the petition at that particular time, but the fact that the words that were used at the committee, the expression from the committee itself, I think has resulted in this action. We don't know what's going to happen from any discussions, but the fact that people are sitting down talking about the matter is a very, very positive step indeed. I know that I've kind of lost track. I think that I've attended every single petition committee apart from one in Dumfries. I couldn't because I had business here, but what we're like to put in record is that the hospice itself has attended every single meeting of this committee since 2007, which is a tremendous record. I know that in the public gallery just now, we've got Gina and Mitchell who have taken over the petition. We've got Claire Murphy from the hospice itself, and we've got another great supporter, the former provost of West Dunbartonshire Council, a councillor, Dennis Agnew. They've put a lot of time. They've always been here to lend support and hear what the petition committee's got to say. I can tell you that I always, when I go out and speak to them, they're so grateful that the petition's committee itself how it handles things, in particular this one. It's been going a long, long time. I think we'll appreciate that, but it had to be quite frank. We're not there yet, and I'm hoping that the petition's committee yet again decides not to close it. I think that it would be premature. I think that you might need to consider it at some other point, but I think that that would not be the right time, but thanks. I agree with you. We can't know whether it's right to close this petition until we know the outcome of the discussions that came about after the last time it was discussed at the petition's committee. I think that we have to wait to see what the discussion actually brings. If we can get a report back from that, we can then consider a future meeting of the petition's committee, and then we can decide at that point if there are still further discussions that we need to be party to. I'll open up to colleagues to see if they agree with that. I agree that we must keep the petition open. I think that I've been on the committee for every meeting that this petition has been discussed. Clearly, what we have now is the same position from the Scottish Government that we had previously when we'd last considered this, and that was to get a meeting between all parties, the Scottish Government, the hospice and the health board. What I'm concerned about is the time delay that it's taken to actually get that meeting organised. I would be keen, as well as keeping the petition open if we write to the Scottish Government and impress on them the urgency of trying to get a meeting organised as soon as possible, not to let this issue continue to drag on, because it has dragged on, in my view, for eight years. I think that we need to try to get some early round-table discussion with all parties concerned, so that we can then consider how we take the petition forward. I'm happy to write to the cabinet secretary on that. In that regard, John, I understand that I suggested a date, and it's very, very early to be quite honest with you, but it wouldn't be for me to say to you not to write to the Government. You've got to write, Gil, just to confirm that. I think that I was just about to suggest that, but just to give you a bit of comfort, there is a date scheduled, but it would be good if you are involved with that. Just to establish that that's the case. I'd be delighted with that, yes. I recall that we actually requested the Government to deal with this as a matter of urgency in one of the committees. I recall that we made that request, so I don't know whether we've actually got a response for that or not. Could we possibly check our records to see what we actually asked for prior and see if we actually got a reply for that or not? We can check that out, but the important thing is that we keep the petition open. We ask our confirmation of the date of the meeting, and then we await the outcome of that meeting before we can deliberate any further. Is that okay? Okay, Gil, thank you very much for talking to us on this one. Thank you. Grateful again. We'll take it forward in that way. Our next petition this morning is PE1223 by Ron Beattie on school bus safety, and I welcome Stuart Stevenson MSP to the meeting, who has a constituency interest in the petition. Members have a note on the committee's previous consideration of the petition and submission from the petitioner and Transport Scotland. We also have copies of the evaluation report of Glasgow City Council's pilot programme on school bus signage. Stuart, over to you to make some comments. I am most obliged to thank you for the opportunity to update in particular some members who may not have been here for the 10 years that basically this issue has been before various forms of this committee. The origins of this, of course, date to a road traffic accident involving Mr Ron Beattie's granddaughter, and I recognise that Ron Beattie is with us in the public gallery once again. I think that over the 10 years that he's been coming here, he's only missed two meetings at which that has been considered. If I say that that represents a round-trip of approaching 350 miles driving, you'll recognise the commitment that he has to improving safety for all school pupils in the vicinity of school buses, because that's the core of this. Can we make things safer in the vicinity of school buses? We've seen a fair amount of activity, but perhaps I would suggest rather less action. The report that we've from Glasgow, perhaps, I just got a couple of things out to that. I know that you will have read it, but in particular that enhanced signage on school buses appears to have made them more visible to people, in particular flashing lights, especially in darkness. The question that's posed is to what extent an enhanced signage has improved driver behaviour. The study that comes from Glasgow says that most drivers recognise that this told them to slow down and be more aware cautious. The on-road test said that a number of drivers said that they were more cautious, although it's fair to say that the report is not unambiguous in suggesting that this is the way forward. What I would suggest to the committee, and of course it is a matter entirely for yourselves, is that we seek ways with Transport Scotland of extending the work that's been done in Glasgow, as reported in the report, but also in the changes and practices that have been in Aberdeenshire to see if we can find what ways we can extend this across all 32 local authorities. Although in Aberdeenshire we've had a number of accidents involving school pupils in the vicinity of buses, I know that it is not simply an Aberdeenshire problem, it's a problem for the whole of Scotland. The debate around this issue and the relentless campaign of Ron Beattie is something that we shouldn't allow to weather without a practical result. Okay, thank you very much. Colleagues have comments on the petition, how we can take it forward. If indeed we can take it forward, carry. I take on board what Stuart Stevenson says. I think that getting a practical result is what we want and obviously we do seem to have to some extent run out of the road with the Scottish Government to have been doing what they can, but I do think that, given that we are running out of road ourselves, making sure that the intimation is put to the UK where power rests on a variety of road traffic issues that are not minor but quite substantial. We're not looking for a huge or massive change in many ways, but it can have significant benefits. I certainly think that getting in touch with the Department of Transport at UK level to say that there is an issue here and to some extent put our shoulders to the wheel from what I assume Derek Mackay and Transport Scotland have been doing. I was just going to suggest that we continue the petition, a note from the response from Transport Scotland on 16 November, where they claimed just to have seen sight of the Glasgow report. Glasgow City Council has got to be commended on taking forward this piece of work, because I think that it shows what can be done if there is a determination to highlight an issue. As well as writing to the Scottish Government and asking them to keep pressure on the Department of Transport, could I suggest that we write as a committee to the Department of Transport and ask them what their views on the Glasgow City Council report is, so that we can then consider whether or not they are going to prepare to take forward the action? We were promised, as a committee, five years ago by the then Minister for the Department of Transport, that they would transfer the powers to the Scottish Government to allow the Scottish Government to bring forward action on this issue. Clearly, the Department of Transport and the UK Government have failed to do that. If the committee can write to the Department of Transport and ask them, on the basis of the report from Glasgow City Council, are they prepared now to transfer the powers to the Scottish Government or take the appropriate action that is necessary to try and alleviate any future road traffic accidents due to the failure of the school bus safety signage and the roads in Britain today? I am a little hesitant in politicalising it. I think that what we want to do is to ask the Department of Transport what exactly they are going to do in response to the Glasgow City Council's report to see whether they are happy to move that forward across the country. If so, what steps or what programmes have they got in place to do that? Does it indicate whether they are intending to take that seriously or not? I think that the question was suggested in general. I think that the only difference was that John wanted to test how far he was prepared to go in terms of the power. It has not come up in the discussions on the Scotland bill. There has been ample opportunity for that to have taken place, but we can check it out. The point that I was raising was that we did have the Minister for the Department of Transport at this committee in 2010 and he gave an assurance at that time that he did not see any reason why the powers regarding the road signage could not be transferred to the Scottish Government and the officials from the Department of Transport and the Scottish Government Transport Scotland could take place to look at transferring those powers. Yes, it might not have been included in the Scotland bill, convener, but there was an assurance at that time that it would happen. It is just a reminder to the Department of Transport that a previous minister did give that commitment that it would look at transferring those powers. If it is not prepared to transfer the powers, then clearly the Department of Transport has to look at the Glasgow City Council report and the petition in light of road safety in Britain today and bring forward some suggestions about how it wishes to improve school bus transport safety. As I said, my suggestion is to find out whether or not they are prepared to take that forward. We can ask the question, it is not a problem. What I was actually suggesting is that rather than make the issue muddied by asking about the transport, minister wants to say about this or not, I would rather get on with the job and the job is the safety of our children. I would rather get a commitment from the Transport Department as to what it is doing to resolve the issue and ensure the safety of our youngsters on the roads. I think that the suggestion is that we do that. There is an additional question being asked as well. I did not want to confuse the issue. I am not sure that we would. I am sure that the clerks will formulate the letter in a way that separates and distorts the distinction between each of the separate questions. Just for clarity, and I have forgotten to say the name of the minister, Mike Pennan. It has just suddenly come to me. I was the minister whose contribution was particularly powerful because he was formally a fireman before he was elected politician and therefore he himself had as a fireman experience of road traffic accidents. It is quite a narrow issue, the question of power. It is purely in relation to being able to mandate what signage there should be on buses. It is perfectly permissible to put on signage beyond the minimum that is mandated, but Mike Pennan made quite a powerful point in that he pointed to some examples of accidents. If I recall correctly, in Wales and in England, there are benefits to other jurisdictions if the Department for Transport, as part of the UK Government, were either to give us the power here or to respond and act themselves. In this forum, I would not want to point out the direction as long as it happens. That is all that matters, and all my concern, Mr Beattie, would wish to happen. The committee has agreed that we are prepared to ask that question, so we will take it forward in that regard. We will see what the responses we get. I am sure that you will continue to keep an eye on it. Our next petition is PE1408 by Andrea McArthur on updating of permissions anemia vitamin B12, efficiency, understanding and treatment. Members have a note on the committee's previous consideration of the petition and an update from the Scottish Government on submissions from the petitioner. In her most recent response, the petitioner explains that she has now had sight of the guidelines and has provided some comments on the content of those guidelines. I can understand that she still has some concerns, but it seems to me that she did seem, in the main, broadly satisfied with the direction of travel. It might be that we are required to allow these guidelines to bed down, and it would be more appropriate if there are further issues that follow on. It is a fresh petition regarding a specific issue that the guidelines are unsatisfactory with, because it seems to me that some of what she initially wanted has been satisfied. I can understand that it is early in the day to be able to say whether the guidelines are working or not, but it also appears to me that if the guidelines are not particularly working, then that might actually be a new issue, as opposed to reviewing the initial issue that she petitioned. Given that the petitioner did provide more evidence, though it might be worthwhile to pass that on to the Scottish Government and ask me to comment on that. It will not change the guidelines, it will not make any difference, but we will get an understanding of the Government's views on her comments. We can take it back to the petitioner's committee once we have seen those comments, but I take entirely what you are saying. We have to wait and see how those guidelines bed in, but the petitioner did have some comments on them, so it would be worth seeing what the response of the Government is to it. Members agreed. Our next petition is PE1458 by Peter Cherby on the register of interests of members of Scotland's judiciary. Members have a note on the committee's previous consideration of the petition and submission from the petitioner. I think that the new Lord President's appointment to whoever he is likely to be within the next week, so there is still time for him to appear before us. Our next petition is PE1548 by Beth Morrison on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. Members have notes from the clerks and submissions from the Scottish Government. We will continue to see what progress is made and we can look again in the new year at the petition. The next petition is PE1558 by John Thom on behalf of RNBCC Crayfish Committee, Kennedy Catchment on American Signal Crayfish. The members have a note from the committee's previous consideration of the petition and we have also received from missions on the petition from SNH and SIPA, the petitioner and Abigail Stancliff von. I think that we might have to go back to SIPA and SNH to get an update on where they stand on this. Again, there is the idea that we could ask Spice to do a bit of work on that. Members think that that would be useful. I can't do any harm, I suppose, if we can ask the question of them. If we get as full a picture of this as we can, I'm afraid. Are there any specific questions that members think that we need to pursue? Can I suggest that we ask SIPA or SNH to respond to the comments that have been made by Abigail Stancliff von in relation to the trapping and other issues that have been raised in that submission? We've got something tangible that they can respond to. Clearly, this is an issue that seems to be clearly divided opinions about the best way to deal with or not to deal with American Signal Crayfish, so it would be useful to pin them down to SNH and SIPA to respond to something tangible on that. I think that the issue that was raised by Abigail Stancliff von is something that they can clearly look up. Members agree that we do that. Our next petition is PE1569, by George Mackenzie, on the reintroduction of the Scottish red ensign. Members have a note on the committee's previous consideration of the petition, but the members have any suggestions themselves? Angus? I think that, convener, given that we are still waiting on a response from the petitioner to the minister's letter, which was clearly quite recent, we should wait and see what the response is back from the petitioner. I thought that the letter from the minister was quite encouraging to the extent that I have sought advice on a legal position in relation to the flying of different ensigns within the same shipping register. Our understanding is that this is not currently permitted under international maritime law. However, he does go on to say that he would be pleased to pursue the issue with the UK Government along with the petitioner. I think that it is certainly right that we hear from the petitioner before we take a further decision. That will be after the new year then, I think, just before we hear. There was a letter on 27 November by the petitioner. We might want to send that to the minister again and get the minister's response to everything and consider it again in the new year. Is that okay? Convener, just for clarification, I am looking at the letter from the Department for Transport, and the Department for Transport might be that I am misreading this, but it seems to conflict with what the Scottish Government Minister said about the flying of the red ensign. It does go into any such request for colours other than those to constitute the red ensign, and it should include an example in the description. It is really just to get clear guidance on what the Department for Transport is saying in relation to any application. I know that there are a number of ships that sail in Scottish waters and fly under different colours. It would be just useful to get clarification on what the WISA Committee cannot ask the Department for Transport to grant those powers to fly the red ensign with salt iron. It would be useful to find out whether or not the Scottish Government would be prepared to advise the petitioner how to take forward such an application if they were so minded. I am actually very pleased with the Minister's response. I think it is important that another one that is going to try to assist the process in allowing people to fly the flag. I think that is important for our shipping to be able to do that. A lot of other nationals do it. I do not see why we cannot do it. I would very much welcome the fact that they would be registered in Scotland as well, unlike many other shipping companies that are registered all over the world and fly different flags. I think that we will continue this based on that and allow the Minister to go that extra mile for us. There seems to be agreement. There were a few questions there, so I will take it forward to ask those questions. The next petition is PE1570 by Alan Lee on parental rights to child contact. Again, members have a note from the clerk and a number of submissions. The submissions include the response from the organisations that we have written to and a submission from families' deed fathers in support of the petition. There are other petitions that relate to that, so it would be useful if we got all the information back on those other petitions as well so that we can consider them together or not necessarily in the one bundle but certainly consider them around the same time with the full information available to us. We would defer this one until we have more information in relation to those other petitions. The last petition is PE1571 by John Beattie on food bank funding. Members have a note on the committee's previous consideration of the petition and the submissions that we received from food banks, local authorities and the Scottish Government. Given that, the Scottish Government is establishing the social justice action plan. It might be useful to wait until we see the outcome of that and to look at the submissions that we have received in the context of the plan that the Government has set out, because it will be talking to the same organisation, so I do not think that there is any point in duplicating the work. With that, we are now going to private session as agreed earlier so that we can discuss agenda item 3.