 Dwi'n meddwl i'n meddwl'r hallu eich rlungs prysgwr i gael yr Oesiaeth Cymru yn 2023. Mae'r rheswedd agendaeth yw'r decision o ddau cyfan yn gweithreibwyd. Arall ar gyfer y gyrfa ym Mhwyg, ym Mhwygr yw'r ysgweith eu 6 i 7 ar anodol ei cyffredinol. Y predictor yn 6 ym Mhwygr ar y Cyffredinol yw'r ysgwysgwr yw'r ysgwysgwr ein gweithreibwyd. Mae'r agendae a'r anodol ei seven mae'r ysgwysgwr yw'r ysgwysgwr ar y coespondens Simon Arthur Douglas is really all rather exciting in support of this cross-party group. I know you'll have read the group's purpose. In that you'll have noticed that we talk about the importance of the space sector to the economy of Scotland, but also to the wider UK. I've been in touch with the chair of the Westminster APPG on space and we've agreed that going forward we will liaise and do the best we can to have a joined up approach on this. But I think there's very little awareness just how much the space industry contributes to the Scottish economy and how we can help develop this going forward. Now at the moment, according to the industry, there are 97 companies involved in Scotland, both Scottish SMEs and rather larger companies. If you look at the list of non-MSP members of the group, you'll see Airbus, Lockheed Martin, the UK Government's Department for International Trade and a number of others, including universities and so on. There's a number of others who are in the process of moving down the road of signing up as well. Scotland's home to a fifth of the jobs in the UK in space. 52 per cent of nano satellites in the world are producing Glasgow, so we have a huge commitment to the space industry. Now alongside this, the number of space businesses have increased by 65 per cent since 2016, and that's evident in the numbers that we're seeing, and it's still expanding. We're leading the way on space industry. For example, the UK Astronomy Technology Centre, based at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, is a national centre of excellence for the development of scientific instrumentation and facilities for ground and space-based astronomy. The phoenix-based mangata network, described as an innovative satellite-enabled cloud services company, has said Airshire will be the centre for its R&D activities, as well as satellite manufacturing, which will increase the proportion of satellites produced in Scotland. They will be creating 575 jobs at the new space research and development facility. From astronomy to pure science to manufacturing to launch to data use and application, it's a complex sector with a wide-ranging and transformational impact. This exciting work that's taking place in Scotland needs a platform for discussion and a platform to highlight the parliamentarians, the world-leading changing innovations that are happening on our doorstep in Scotland. Since submitting the form, there's two other organisations have signed up, Skyrora and Global Trek Aviation. Skyrora, I have a particular feeling for it because they're in my constituency and I have stood there beside the rockets and it really is impressive. This is exciting. We have at the moment 23 of the 97 organisations signed up and we're in discussion with many more. I'm also pleased that the establishment of the CPG has attracted attention from the different political parties. It's rare, I think, to have four different political parties with representatives signed up for a cross-party group. These days, you struggle to get two or three to do that, but still, we're good. It demonstrates the interest and the need for the cross-party group. I think that this CPG will strengthen and go from increase in size. Talking about possible duplications are overlapped. The CPG on aviation used to touch on space, however, this appeared from the minutes to be very rare. It didn't really touch on the space industry in the breadth and depth, given the huge scale of the space industry, and it seemed to focus more on the large commercial airlines, airport and travel agent groups. Bringing that focus to space, the huge growing industry in Scotland is, I think, tremendously important. The sector simply wants a dedicated CPG, as no other CPGs fully capture this sector. I'm aware of the large number of CPGs, which is why I'm here. I've been careful not to overly commit myself to a large number of CPGs in this session, so I can keep that priority and focus on the CPGs that I'm a convener of and member of. I believe that the members who have signed up to the CPG will, no doubt, have made the same considerations. The CPG has three deputy conveners and myself as convener, which ensures that the proper support can be given to the CPG and allows capacity for other MSPs to step in should someone not be available. We plan to meet about four times a year, more or less, like any other CPGs, but we will be a bit flexible on that, depending on whether we're dealing with a lot of people in a complex and wide industry, so we'll be a bit flexible on that. Given the support, both within the Parliament and from the industry groups, I'll link up with the Westminster APPG. As I said, we've even got UK Government departments as members, so that's probably a first. I think that there's a very strong case here for the CPG, and I hope that the committee will give it due consideration. Thank you very much, Colin, for that. It was nice to see. I mean this in the most polite way, the almost juvenile excitement about SCARER signing up to it. It does speak at an interesting time with regard to space here in Scotland, where there is that almost childhood excitement of rockets and satellites, but the reality is that there are a significant number of jobs as you've indicated already exist for it. Just before I invite other members of the committee, can I just confirm, in essence, the extent of what you're covering with regard to space? I could then do the quote of the final frontier, covering everything. But your interest is in both the launch site facilities, the launch facilities, but also the engineering behind the satellite production and all of the supply chain into that here in Scotland. Is that right? That would be correct. We're taking a very wide focus at this point. In our early meetings, I would expect that the members will themselves indicate where they need to focus attention through the CPG in order to gain an awareness of the issues that are facing it. I know that there are regulatory issues and so on, and part of those regulatory issues are with the Scottish Government, part of the UK Government, and again, I think that this link-up between the two different committees at the opposite ends will be really useful for lobbying for what's needed to make sure that this is a successful industry. Thank you, that's very helpful. Do any other committee members have any questions? If I start the far end there, Alexander? Thank you, thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Beattie, for a very good synopsis in your introduction about where you are in this process. I think that you have identified the gap in the market for the Parliament to be actively involved. What are your initial plans? You've got a huge amount of information and a huge amount of organisations there. How are you planning to try and streamline that so that you try and capture what is a very progressive industry to ensure that you're capturing what is required because, as I say, you've already identified that there's a massive market and there's a massive opportunity, but it's trying to streamline that to make sure that the CPG does actually gain and benefit from that in its early existence. Clearly, it's a huge industry and there is a limit to what a CPG can do. You're meeting four times a year perhaps. I think that there's two areas that we'd focus on, as I see it now. One is the informational side, to make sure that MSPs are informed and understand the developments and what's happening. That will have to be something that we talk to the industry members about, where there's a weakness or where there are things that we can do to lobby or persuade, or you understand the limitations of a CPG, but we can raise to the surface where there are problems and glitches that we can maybe help with collectively. I was interested in this cross-partisuit, but I should declare an interest. I haven't explored any great detail. The West of Scotland Science Park is in my constituency of Mary Helen Springburn. Springburn, we've got a number of companies who are actively involved in the space sector with technology and are very successful, so Mary Helen has a footprint in space. That said, I may join this cross-partisuit if it's a forwarded recognition, but my time constraints are such that I wouldn't be taken on an office-based position and I might come to an occasional meeting that has a particular constituency interest. I get the time constraints that there are on MSPs. You are a convener of three cross-partisuit groups already. Become a convener of a fourth cross-partisuit group is a significant time constraint. Do you feel that the time to commit to being a convener of four cross-partisuit groups? I think that this cross-partisuit group has already attracted a huge amount of attention and a huge amount of interest. MSPs become engaged in different things for different reasons, partly because of their own interests, partly because of the interests of their constituents and so on. I think that as far as the space CPG is concerned, the level of interest is probably the highest that I've seen in a very, very long time. You're talking about perhaps only having time to drop in on things that are related to constituency business and so on. That's absolutely fine. That would be encouraged. To be fair, Mr Beattie, I was talking about your time constraints rather than mine. You're a convener of three cross-partisuit groups. Every potential cross-partisuit group in the future will be asked very similar questions. It's nothing specific to yourself or this cross-partisuit group, but four cross-partisuit groups require a significant commitment to be convener of. Do you feel that you can give it the time that it deserves? I do. The industry members themselves are taking on the secretarial work and the admin work and so forth. They are providing all the support, so my office will be relatively not impacted. Yes, there will have to be input from the convener and hopefully from the active MSPs, but I'm absolutely certain that I would not have gone into this if I didn't believe that I had the time to be able to commit to this. Frankly, given the nature of what we're looking at, it's a priority for Scotland, for the rest of the UK, and it would be a serious it would be a serious deficiency in the range of CPGs that we're providing if this vital area wasn't covered. Let me follow up a little bit more on that. I do note that this would be your eighth cross-partisuit group, if that one is accepted. I convene two cross-partisuit groups that can provide lots of really good purposes. One purpose that they can provide is that they can really connect the sector in a way that they may not necessarily be connected and the cross-partisuit group can do that. I'd like to know whether you feel that the space industry is already well connected as a sector in an industry, whether you feel that they've already got good links with government at all levels, be that local authorities, be that Scottish Government and UK Government. The reason for asking those two questions is because earlier on your contribution you mentioned a bit of a serious deficiency, if we didn't have this cross-partisuit group, but also that where problems emerge, this could be a vehicle for tackling some of that. Can you give me an example of what those problems are, or is everything tickety-boo at the moment? What are the issues? In the early stages of discussions when we're putting this group together, there were a couple of areas that were highlighted that were causing some issues. One was government policy, both north and south of the border, and lack of clarification, which would allow them to go forward and develop. Also, there were concerns about regulatory constraints, because the regulations are not moving as fast as the space industry is, so that really is a UK issue, which we would hope to highlight and link up with the APBG down in Westminster. We need to have a joined-up approach on that, because a lot of those companies that are signing up are operating north and south of the border, so we have to make sure that this will be a little bit complicated at first until we can get it buried in. However, if we can make this work, the benefits to Scotland will be significant. Cross-party groups have no power, but they have the power of being heard, publicity, making sure that people understand what the issues are. As we know, Government ministers have been very generous in their time in coming into CPGs and talking to them and understanding those issues. There are a lot of issues around CPGs where you are dealing with different competing bodies, because some of them are competitors. I suspect that Airbus and Lockheed Martin are not necessarily commercially joined at the hip. There are those issues as well, but a lot of that is for the participants who are pushing for this, and they are pushing for that. They see a value in that, so it is for them to work out those issues, if indeed they are issues. There are so many common issues, as I said, with regulation, with planning and with policy, that we can help to focus on that and bring it together. It would be so much more powerful if it could be done in tandem up here in Scotland and down in Westminster. I am glad that I first of all apologise for ever using the expression Tickety Boon Committee. Can we please strike that from the record? I am glad that I pushed a little bit, Mr Beattie, on that, because that was the first time I heard you describe what emerging issues there could be within the industry sector where MSPs would want to be sited on that to take forward how we see fit on a cross-party group basis to deal with some of those in relation to clarity of government policy both in Scotland and the UK and in relation to the regulatory regime. We are starting to hit upon things where there could be real public interest in pushing forward within this Parliament's cross-party group system, so I will please push a little bit on that, Mr Beattie, but that gives me a lot more certainty about the benefit of this cross-party group. Thank you, Bob. If there are no further questions from the committee, can I thank you for attending this morning, Colin Beattie? The committee will consider whether to approve the application at agenda item 3 and the clerks will inform you of the committee's decision in due course, but can I thank you for coming today? Thank you. Now indeed, if we move to agenda item 3, it is for the committee to consider whether or not to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on space. Are there any comments before I formally put the question? I have a bit unfair on Mr Beattie, but my last line of questioning was quite important because before that I was getting the picture of a powerful dynamic in growing industry within Scotland and the UK, which is great news. I would be a little but unclear about the benefit for the Parliament and the sector, but it is a parliamentary cross-party group. Towards the end of the exchange, I could see what the benefit for the Parliament would be other than just being informed. Mr Beattie can outline some of that. We are not very good at a Parliament from year to year, so auditing some of that to see if cross-party groups fulfil what their aspirations were. That is not specific to the proposed cross-party group, but it maybe feeds in, convener, to a discussion that we may have later on in this meeting about cross-party groups more generally. I just wanted to put that on the record given that we have just discussed this particular cross-party group. Some really quite significant ambitions which I commend, but with all cross-party groups, maybe we have to look a little bit more carefully at whether that actually fulfil what they are seeking to set out to fulfil when they come to hear or to this committee to seek recognition. You certainly anticipate a later agenda item with that, so can I thank you, Bob? Edward? Just to put on record, as I do, every time we consider a cross-party group is the number of cross-party groups in this Parliament, but I know we are coming on to that. I just will continue to say it until I believe we have resolved the issue, which I do not think we have yet, convener. That is very helpful. If there are no other comments, can I put the formal question? Are we going to acquiesce recognition to this proposed cross-party group? Are we in agreement? We are. Excellent. Thank you. Agender item 4 is in relation to correspondence that we have received from Graham Day MSP. In his correspondence, he raises a number of concerns about parliamentary motions and how they are being used, and in particular those that congratulate individuals or organisations. Does any member of the committee have any comments on that? Edward? I have just said that, in the six years that I have been in Parliament, I have noticed exactly the same thing. I have also noticed the amount of time it takes for motions to be approved to come back through from the Parliament, which would suggest that there is a problem not only in resourcing it, possibly in funding it, but the number of motions. It has changed in the past. It was to congratulate groups and organisations. I am not saying that it has got to the level of this, but we are in some case almost at the level of congratulating somebody for baking a cake or doing other things. I wonder if that is what the system proposed. We need to look at that. It would be very helpful to have views from people who have been in the Parliament for longer than me to see if they notice. Graham Day might be that person to come and give evidence to the committee. That is very helpful. Thanks, convener. Can I flip this round in terms of motions? I agree with Edward in terms of the length of time that it takes to put a motion for or for it to get approved. However, I am going to link that to CPG, which is absolutely relevant today. I am a member of the CPG for medicinal cannabis. It affects a constituent of mine. Given the evidence that came forward at the CPG for that, I put a motion forward and I got such strong support for it. It was the first time that I was able to put on a member's debate in the chamber, which was really effective. It is evidence that that is how effective CPGs work, but equally in terms of motions as well taking that forward in what we are doing. However, some of the motions that are coming forward are particularly weak. I strongly agree with Edward on that. I agree with Graham in his letter as well. That is very helpful. I think that Graham Day makes some very valid points, convener, about the structure, the type. However, I also acknowledge what others have said. Having motions is a great opportunity to highlight some very worthwhile causes. We just have to look at the amount of information that is transmitted. It is a way to recognise an individual or an organisation at a level within a region or a constituency, as well as locally, regionally or nationally. However, I acknowledge the fact that there seems to be an erosion of some of that. I think that in trying to bring things to a better conclusion for everybody so that there is a level of standard or an area that people would expect to be always potentially putting forward. However, there is also an area that is now going below the bar if a bar has to be produced or met to suggest that that would be what we would expect, but something of a nature would not. I think that it would be useful to be guided for staff and for MSPs. In reality, nine times out of ten, it might be a staff member who is putting together some of the motions on behalf of the member himself or herself. I think that that needs to be done. There is a bit of training required when it comes to what researchers and communications officers or managers within the Parliament are trying to do as well. I think that all of those needs to be looked at in this process. If we can capture that, it would be easier to manage the process for everybody. That is very helpful. Thanks, convener. I think that Mr D has dared to put on record in the public domain something that many MSPs have been thinking about for some time. That said, some MSPs that I have been thinking about for some time may also be in guilt to the wrong expression to use, guilty of putting motions down, as Mr Luton said, about someone who wins a contest for baking a cake. I can tell you that he has never tasted my cookie. That would not be subject to any of those motions. However, Mr Gray makes a serious point, but there are always unintended consequences, convener. This Parliament needs to find a way about how we shine a light on remarkable people at all levels of society who do something worthwhile and deserve to be commended, be it in this Parliament or elsewhere. That said, that does not always have to be through a conventional parliamentary motion. I know that there are other members in this place who have ideas about various ways that Parliamentarians, be those constituencies or regional MSPs, could use parliamentary mechanisms to shine a light on the remarkable people in their constituencies that will represent who deserve to be recognised. That would always be through a parliamentary motion, but there should be a mechanism. If we are going to review this, we should bear in mind that we have to do it in a way that does not block opportunities for members of this Parliament to recognise remarkable people irrespective of whether that is a substantial thing at a regional national level or a very small micro-local thing, because they do a difference to their community. With that in mind, I am keen to look at this in greater detail and see what other ideas are there amongst Parliamentarians and others. If we are going to look at parliamentary motions, we might want to look at another aspect of the changing nature of parliamentary motions. When I was first elected in this place in 2007, motions that were taken for members' debate tended to be consensual or thought-provoking and challenging, but very rarely tribal in playing out entrenched party positions. I get a feeling, convener, that in the last few years motions for debate have been much more entrenched at times, much more tribal at times and much more opportunities for some MSPs to play out entrenched party positions. I do not think that that was ever the intention of members' debates. It is motions that are lodged in Parliament that are then taken forward for members' debates. We should look at the totality of motions lodged in this place if we are going to look at this in more detail. Finally, convener, there are some wonderful members' debates out there where you get a fantastic debate and a great dynamic and thought-provoking ideas between members of all parties. We should not restrict that vibrant debate, but there has been a tendency for tribalised debates in the chamber in members' debates. I do not think that that was the original intention. We should look at motions and debates in the round. I agree with Bob in the sense that I have noticed a far more tribal approach to motions. The motions that are interesting are the ones that you choose to speak in because you want to inform yourself about it. I have no idea, but I have volunteered to speak in it because it informs me about things that are going on. Those are the motions that are useful. They are the motions that highlight important things in the Parliament. I agree with Bob that there are motions that come which are purely political in members' debates, which may be wrong, and I think it is wrong, but probably shows frustration about the lack of ability to debate these in normal parliamentary time. I think it is a wider inquiry. I think it is wrong. I do not believe it is the reason for motions to have a political debate. It is to inform debate and to celebrate and to, in some cases, in another case, just to inform us of things that are going on. I would echo Bob's views, and I think that a wider inquiry into all of those things, with costings, would be important. We all know that sometimes you settle down in the evening at nine o'clock and then you get a whole heap of motions flooding into your inbox, usually six from one person just in the evening. I am not saying they are meaningless, but to flood somebody's email box with six motions in the evening on sometimes quite minor issues is not a way to get parliamentarians informed or involved in processes. All of those contributions are incredibly helpful. I think that Graham Day's letter, for which I do thank him, is speaking very specifically about the motions that are just seeking MSP support, rather than those that are intended to go forward for a member's debate. However, I am cognisant of what members have said that this seems to have been not unspoken but a quietly spoken concern of a number of MSPs. I think that there is an agreement in the committee to look at this further. Would the committee be content for a short paper to be drafted seeking costings information so that we can perhaps place a parameter around what the sort of inquiry would be? I noted the comment about seeking the wisdom of more experienced members who sat over a number of sessions to at the very least subjectively give us their experiences of the change in motions and debate would be helpful. Are we content to ask for a paper to be prepared and consider this at a subsequent meeting? Excellent. I am very grateful for that. Our next agenda item 5 is to consider the annual update on the cross-party group compliance with the code of conduct. Members will have received the paper that looks back at the cross-party groups over the period of time in which each cross-party group that this committee has afforded recognition to has been green, yellow, red or blue coded for the variety of requirements that are needed for them to comply with the rules. Would anyone like to kick off with comment discussion or opinion on what they have looked at? I do not want to kick off. I may give some reason discussion on this. Ever since I have been a member of this committee, I have always voiced my concerns about the amount of work that cross-party groups require from MSPs. Some MSPs in trying to support groups take on a huge amount of CPG responsibilities. Some feel pressurised into doing that. I think that new members, without knowing, sometimes may get themselves into the situation where they are on several cross-party groups and they are not able to give any of them their full attention. Looking at this chart in front of me and in front of the committee is extremely interesting. The vast majority of cross-party groups are green-lighted if that is a right description for complying with the requirements. However, there are a significant amount of groups that have in some cases more than one yellow warning light and in some cases a red stop light, and in some cases more than one red stop light. Using the analogies that are in here, I think that we need to do a further piece of work on looking at how to resolve this. However, my gut feeling is that if I saw a group with two red lights, there would be a very clear indication in my mind that one should question whether the cross-party group is fulfilling its role. If there were two yellow lights and a red light, that would also fulfil that same criteria. I do not propose to go through the list. People can look at it themselves and make their own decisions, but my view is that I believe that the committee has a role in helping cross-party groups to decide whether they have a future or whether they do not have a future. We should be quite forthright in our questioning as a committee and encourage, but if we cannot encourage people to fill their requirements or cross-party groups to fill their requirements, we should suggest to them that they do not fill their requirements and they should drop out. I do not want this to be seen and I would like it on record that I am against all cross-party groups. I am fundamentally not. I am a convener of two cross-party groups and I give it my entire attention and I work hard on those cross-party groups, as a lot of MSPs do. In some cases, there are three, four or five cross-party groups. Could I be on those? I struggle, convener, and I will perhaps leave it there. That is helpful. Alexander, can I come to you? Thank you, convener. As Edward has already indicated, time is precious for MSPs, but the need to have cross-party groups—we have already spoke on this on a number of occasions in the past—is very worthwhile. It is a great opportunity to ensure that the building and this Parliament recognise and support many organisations and individuals. That is good, but there is an issue when it comes to workforce, timing, the focus of the groups and parliamentary business all have an impact on all those cross-party groups. I am a co-convener of three, and I know how much time that takes up to ensure that I can manage to balance my work-life balance within this building to ensure that I do that. However, I am definitely concerned at the number of orange and red that appear on this document, because that once again is a red light to us as a committee that there is a problem. The problem may well be that it is time, work, focus and parliamentary business that are affecting all of that. It may well be that the cross-party group has run its course and it needs to be re-thought if it is to continue. I think that that is important that we maybe do analyse some of them and their focus and what type of procedures they have if it has now got to the stage. There is also the discussion about how many cross-party groups have an overbalance with one another and that can dilute. Maybe we do not need to see that talk on one area but one that maybe does this specifically. I think that this has been a very useful document for us to see, but I think that there is a lot more work to be done, convener, to ensure that we get the best out of this. As I say, I am a great supporter of cross-party groups, as many are, but they need to be relevant, they need to be progressive and they also need to be fulfilling the standard that we set at this committee and within this Parliament. If they are not doing that, they need to be looked at. Thank you, convener. Clearly I made some comments to Mr Beattie earlier on in the meeting. I felt a bit guilty about that because I have a very direct constituent's interest to cross-party groups in space being successful in this Parliament, given the employment that creates the dynamic that is in my constituency for the space sector. That industry is a real growing sector, but I just wanted to challenge and push a little bit in relation to whether we should approve that cross-party group—not because it is a cross-party group in space but because there has been a feeling for years now, before this particular committee was in post, that it was a conveyor belt to acceptance and compliance for cross-party groups. That is just how it has always been. Clearly that has got to stop now. There has got to be some new structures put in place. Can I commend the clerking team for providing the diagram, the visual aid, to let us know what is going on across all the cross-party groups in the Parliament? We probably have to build up additional structures around how we scrutinise the compliance of cross-party groups in this place and just be consistent and systematic at how we approach it within the Parliament, so that one cross-party group does not feel it has been unfairly targeted over others for lack of compliance. If we can just have a little bit of a review of how that is monitored in the Parliament and how cross-party groups are not compliant, they are supported to be compliant, or whether those slightly more challenging conversations about has a group effectively fallen into abeyns. Is that the best way forward to—I hate this expression—to limp on rather than to re-consaudit your efforts as MSPs about the best use of your time? That is very helpful. It is right to say that there are a significant number of the CPGs that have complied with regulatory requirements. There are indeed CPGs that have not got to the stage where they would have been expected to do their annual return but have complied with all the requirements. We have already withdrawn recognition from one CPG this year in relation to a failure to meet the requirements that are there, and that is contained in this report. I wonder whether, actually for the purposes of the annual review, the committee would be content for me as convener to write to all of the groups those that have complied simply to say thank you for complying. Those who have not to highlight where they have fallen short will be cognisant of what we have said today with the outcomes that could follow unless they can first rectify their regulatory failure—it is interesting that Mr Beattie is talking about regulatory requirements— complied with their regulatory requirements and or explained why they have been unable because I know that there have been a number of events that have had to be cancelled because of other chamber commitments, but if the committee is happy for me to do that, I think that it is a way to take this and I echo your comments, Bob, this excellent piece of work, which I would draw attention to all CPGs to look at to see how they are doing it. It is very quick to find your own individual CPG that you are involved in and to see how it is being complied with. Are we content with it? Oh, Edward, don't make sense. I totally agree. Could it in that letter you be quite firm so that we continue to look at it? Could I say that you might also offer them the opportunity, if they haven't complied, to consider whether they may wish to withdraw the CPG? It is really difficult as an MSP once you get tied into this to say, maybe this isn't working. If you give them the opportunity, that might be useful to some of the members on those groups. I think that is very helpful and it echo Bob's pressing questions to Colin Beattie. There is an obligation on the MSPs themselves to do this and sometimes we may need to help MSPs even from themselves. I will put in that, should the CPG have come to the end of what it sought to achieve, it is possible to write to us to be in essence de-recognised and remove the obligations. I didn't say in my questions that I'm really pleased that you did. Most cross-party groups are compliant and meet all their requirements and maybe that was a little bit lost in my comments. I'm pleased that you put that on the record. I suspect that most cross-party groups are compliant because they have exceptional secretariats supporting them by and large, unpaid, doing sterling work and I think that that's important to recognise as well. I think that we're agreeing to write to conveners. I don't know if it's appropriate to also write to the convener and the associated secretariat with said same correspondence. This is a horrible thing to say, convener, but I want to make sure that the secretariats are cited on these matters at the earliest opportunity, particularly if a cross-party group is not compliant. I think that that is common sense at its best. I will be writing to the convener because they're the individual who has undertaken to comply with this as an MSP, but of course it makes sense to ensure that the secretariat where they're identified are also aware because of the good work that a lot of the secretariats do. At the end of the day, we have as a committee almost from day one been concerned about CPGs. It is something that is discussed by MSPs. They do fulfil, at their very best, an incredibly valuable function within this Parliament, allowing people of Scotland, industries of Scotland, charities of Scotland, third sector of Scotland, communities of Scotland to reach out and speak to specific MSPs to seek their help and assistance or, indeed, just to give them information. However, I think that this annual report shows that there are warning lights on the dashboard, and it would be wrong for us to ignore those. If we're happy to do that, I will write to all of the CPGs a variety of correspondence, first congratulating those who have complied with it and those who have not, along with their supporting secretariat, seeking an explanation and an undertaking to put right the defects as soon as possible. Are we content with that? Excellent. With that, I will now move the meeting into private.