 Welcome to the 24th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2017. I remind members and others in the room to switch off phones and other devices to silent. This morning, we have apologies from Joanne Lamont, but no other apologies. I will move straight to agenda item 1, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions, and the first petition is PE1602 by Carol Sunnicks on ECGs and hard echo tests with anti-natal care. Our last consideration of this petition was in September last year when we agreed to defer further consideration pending publication of updated guidance on cardiac disease and pregnancy by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In April of this year, the Royal College of Medicine advised that it had decided that there was no requirement to update its guidance on cardiac disease and pregnancy as nice as developing guidelines on intrapartum care for women with pre-existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies. The Royal College indicated its hope that these guidelines will become the up-to-date reference for clinicians. In her submission, the petitioner highlights her view that the scope of the guidelines has been developed by nice centres on pre-existing conditions or obstetric complications. In a quote, there is nothing that looks at anti-natal care that includes really not the possibility of peripartum cardiomyopathy. She argues that the introduction of a blood test would allow for in-depth testing and treatment before a woman goes into labour by identifying any indicators of potential peripartum cardiomyopathy. The nice website includes project information and documents and indicates that it expects to consult on the draft guidance from 6 September to 18 October next year, with an expected publication date of 6 March 2019. I open it up to members. Do you have any comments or suggestions for further action? Brian Whittle is quite difficult for us to do anything with this until such times as nice guidelines come out. However, I think that it is perfectly possible for this committee to write to that when they are developing the guidelines. I am bringing the petition to their attention and the concern of the petitioner to their attention. I am not quite sure of what else we can do when they are developing the guidelines, apart from that. Michelle Ballanty. I agree that we should write to NICE and ask them to consider the inclusion of looking at how they manage people who do not have a pre-existing condition and recognising that it can occur during pregnancy. I think that we have to close the petition this time. Once the guidelines come out, if the petitioner still feels that it is missing, she can always come back. I agree with both of those actions. We need to wait until we see what the guidelines are, close the petition and take it from there. If the petitioner wants to come back, she can do that. However, I agree with Brian Whittle saying that please draw NICE's attention to the petition so that they can take that into consideration. I think that we have consensus around the table. I think that there is a lot of merit in writing to NICE, but to also close the petition on the basis that NICE is developing guidelines, which will be issued for consultation in 2018 with an anticipated publication date of March 2019. In doing so, we should also bring the petitioner's attention to the fact that there is a facility for people to register their interests in the development of the guidelines. If she is not satisfied with the conclusions that are reached by NICE, she is perfectly entitled to bring back a petition in the same or similar terms in the future. We agree to take that action to write to NICE but also to close the petition. If we can move on to petition PE1626, the regulation of bus services. This petition is by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite Scotland on the regulation of bus services. We will ask consider this petition in June when we agreed to ask the Scottish Government to provide an indicative timescale for its consultation on the proposed transport bill and to engage with the petitioners at an early stage of that consultation. The Scottish Government indicated that officials would meet with Unite to discuss the proposals for bus services prior to publication of the consultation and again following the publication. It advised that the consultation would be published in the autumn. The note by the clerk indicates that the consultation ran from 13 September until 5 December. It also identifies that the petitioners have not been in a position to provide a response to the Scottish Government's two most recent submissions but have indicated that they would be keen to proceed with the petition. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action? I think that we should invite the petitioners to respond because I think that until we hear what they think, I'm not sure where we'll go at the moment. They have said that they are keen to provide a written response in the new year, so I think that we'll wait until they do that and then take it from there. Okay, thank you. It's agreed then and I would encourage the petitioners to submit their views at an early date and then we will look at it at a forthcoming meeting. Okay, thank you. Can we move on to petition P1629, MRI scans for ocular melanoma sufferers in Scotland? It's the petitions by Jennifer Lewis and at our previous consideration of this petition in June, we agreed to invite NICE and the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioners' argument that recent clinical trials have brought new evidence to light. NICE considered that it would not be appropriate to comment on any aspect of the petition as it hasn't produced guidance on the use of MRI scans for ocular melanoma sufferers. The Scottish Government considered that there's not sufficient evidence to enact a change in surveillance protocols for people with ocular melanoma. We also invited the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioners' view that guidelines are interpreted flexibly by centres elsewhere in the UK in that they will provide MRI scans if requested. The Scottish Government presented its understanding that MRI scans are offered in a limited capacity. The petitioner considers that the number of hospitals that offer MRI scans upon referral or request represents more than a limited capacity, in her words, and notes that others will also provide MRI if the circumstances and concerns with regard to metastasis are explained to them. She contends that this is not provided to patients in Scotland even when they explain the situation. The Scottish Government provided further information in relation to the formation of a UK-wide group that will share expertise and develop UK-wide guidance and recommendations to ensure a consistent approach to screening and surveillance. The petitioner and Occumail UK queried the benefit of such a group. Occumail UK considers that this work had already been completed by the guideline development group, which produced guidelines approved but not published by NICE in 2013. Occumail UK stated its concern that, as the new UK-wide group is yet to be formed, could considerably delay any advances in care for patients in Scotland. From late October, there have been further submissions that set out concerns about what are referred to as negative developments with regard to the provision of scanning services in Scotland. The concerns are that patients are now required to attend their ultrasound appointments locally rather than at the specialist centre at Gartnavel. In our submission of 25 October, the petitioner identifies three aspects of the role of the national services division, which he feels are not being met as a consequence of this new approach to the provision of scanning services. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action? Michelle Brown has a negative response, and there are still no answers. I note that the group that was set up in August was in the early stages. Almost four months on, we are no clearer as to what has happened, if anything. We were told that we would be kept updated with respect to that, so we need to find out what is happening with that. We also need to let the rights of the Scottish Government and let them know of the petitioner's further concerns and ask as many questions as we can. I do not feel that there has been any progression in this petition at all. Michelle Brown? It is a really frustrating one when you look at it, because it just feels like it has been played ping-pong with. Yes, I think that we do need to ask more questions, but I feel a very slight reluctance to write again to get another letter back. I wonder whether there is the option to take some evidence around this and have an actual conversation about whether that is feasible, because it just feels like we are knocking it back and forth and just not getting an answer, and then having to write again. I have got to say that I am sure that frustration. The evidence that we took at the time was quite compelling. I thought that it was very well thought out and quite compelling, because I am quite frustrated by the responses that we have got from the petition. I do feel that we have got to stay on this. I think that our only option is to write again, probably in stronger terms, because I do feel that we are getting a batted back, pushed to the side. I thought that the evidence that they gave was quite compelling. I do not mean from the petition. I mean from the minister and from the chief medical officer. I think that we need to be talking to them about why they are basically ignoring this. Is there a case for speaking to the CMO on this? I am not getting a sense of why that petition has been pushed to the side. I am not really getting that feeling from the Government response. There is certainly nothing to stop us writing directly to the CMO to see what her view is, but it was a guard to taking evidence. I think that there is an issue with regard to the workload that the committee already has. I am advised by the clerks that we may not be able to take evidence until possibly the end of March at the earliest. I think that we need to move us forward. In the meantime, I think that we should be writing to the Scottish Government and separately to the CMO, as Brian Whittle suggested. If we are writing to the Government and to the CMO, could we be saying that if we cannot resolve this quickly by written communication, then we will be requiring them to come in front of us and maybe that will encourage them to address the questions, because they know that they would have to come here otherwise. I think that there is a hell of a merit in that suggestion. We can include that in any correspondence. I am conscious of these petitions. The time is of the essence. This is not a petition that can drag on for years from a petitioner's point of view. This is a life and death petition. I think that we should suggest that we have not been particularly enamoured with the responses from the Government at this stage. There is merit in all these suggestions. Within the letter to the Scottish Government, we should seek an update on the establishment of the UK-wide group and the development of guidance and recommendations on surveillance whether the group will include medical oncologists and whether it is aware of the guideline development group. We should also seek its position on recent peer-reviewed evidence and seek its response to the more recent concerns expressed by the petitioner and others in terms of where patients should attend for surveillance. I agree. If we can move on to petition P1632, concessionary transport for carers, by Amanda MacDonald. At our previous consideration of this petition in June, we agreed to ask the Scottish Government what the estimated cost of introducing concessionary public transport for carers would be. The committee also agreed to ask COSLA what consideration local authorities had given to the forthcoming duty under the Carers Scotland Act 2016 to provide support to carers who meet locally-agreed eligibility criteria and whether that includes any plans to introduce concessionary transport for carers. The information is outlined in detail in the papers. COSLA's written submission stated that the proposed concessionary travel scheme would not be affordable or represent the most effective way to invest public services resources. The petitioner suggested that if concessionary transport was considered too expensive to be rolled out through the national concessionary transport scheme, then a national flat rate for carers on public transport could perhaps be considered instead. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action on the petition? I have a lot of sympathy for the petition. As we all know, the monetary value of the job that carers do, and I have had the opportunity a couple of times before going on to a series of events with carers. One of the big issues is their ability to interact with others and travel being one of the main issues. I have a lot of sympathy for the petition and I do not quite understand because I do not think that the cost implications are that high. I am surprised at the response, but I would certainly like to continue to ask that the Scottish Government views on the petitioner's suggestion of the introduction of a national flat rate for carers at the very least. I have sympathy with it, absolutely. In some respects, the issue of travel is not just about carers—I know that the petition is—but we are debating this in so many forums and in so many ways about travel and concessionary travel. It is a problem across the board. It is a problem in rurality, where children cannot access activities. It is a problem for carers. It is a problem for older people. It is a problem in the sense that we are losing a lot of our public transport as well, because, as the vast majority of people use cars now, particularly in rural areas, there is no accessibility. Obviously, the earlier petition is about changing the bus transport system as well. Much as I have huge sympathy, I am just not sure that we could do anything with this at the moment. I suppose that the situation with local government, which is the point of subsidisation for transport, is that, if anything, they are reducing the amount of subsidy that they give at the moment, and I cannot see that they are going to be able to add to it. I understand where COSLA is coming from. It is not that they would not want to support it or that it is not even that it is not the right thing to do. It is just that, at this present stage, I just do not think that they are going to be able to. The flat rate is an interesting one, because certainly when I was a child, there was a flat rate of travel on the bus for young people and a flat rate, and everybody just paid the same. You just got on and you paid the same, you know, whatever distance you went. I actually do not know when or why it was changed, but I think that what would be interesting is that the petition that we are working on at the front-end perhaps needs to go through and see where that ends up, and then I think that the whole business of transport probably needs to be visited. I am just not sure that we can deliver one particular aspect. COSLA are clearly and understandably coming at this from a budgetary point of view and the restraints on them, and I can understand that. However, I do think that it would be worthwhile asking the Scottish Government for its views on the introduction of a flat rate and whether it would consider that that would be acceptable, because I do not think that we have gone down that road before. I think that that would be probably the last chance saloon for it, to be quite honest. I do not think that the free travel that the petitioner is asking for is realistic, but I have sympathy with it. However, I think that the flat rate that we could ask about. Yes, okay, thanks. Clearly, there are cost implications, as has been highlighted by COSLA, but I think that this committee would be failing in our duty if we did not explore the issue of a flat rate. While there is an argument to close the petition, I think that we should explore the issue of a flat rate further. I think that that is agreed by everyone around the table. That is the next course of action, agreed on PE1632. Okay, if we can move on to PE1638 by Sean Clarkin on local housing allowance, brackets, bedroom, tax 2, closed brackets. At our previous consideration of the petition in June, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. The UK Government has since dropped its plans to introduce local housing allowance rates to the local rented sector, and the petitioner has informed the clerks that, on that basis, he wishes to withdraw the petition. Taking that on board, are we content to close the petition or do members have any comments or further suggestions? Okay, we agreed to close that petition and kind of thank the petitioner for the action that he took and bringing the issue to the attention of the committee. If we can move on to petition PE1653, Active Travel Infrastructure, by McKellan Jackson on behalf of Gorebridge Community Trust. At our last consideration of this petition in June, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Sustrans, Scottish Environment Link and WWF Scotland. The Scottish Government's written submission makes reference to a wide range of plans in place to support Active Travel and Cycling in Scotland, including a new trunk road, walking and cycling strategy, which was due to be published in September. However, members may wish to note that the clerks were unable to source the strategy on the Transport Scotland website at the time of preparing the note for this petition. Submissions received from Sustrans and the petitioner raised concerns that the Scottish Government's target of 10 per cent of all journeys being taken by bike by 2020 is unlikely to be met, unless a fundamental change is made to the way that that infrastructure projects are designed. Suggestions made in the written submissions received to improve the chances of this target being met include increased funding, amending the current approach to the appraisal of transport projects and establishing a legal framework for active travel infrastructure projects. Do members have any comments or suggestions on further action? The submission by the Scottish Government says that trunk road cycling initiative aims to ensure that all major road projects are given care for consideration to suitable version for all road users, as she will be aware. I am quite involved in the A77 upgrade in the Mabel bypass, and one of the questions that I asked the minister was whether there would be provision made for active travel to which there is not. That particular submission by the Scottish Government is contradictory, so I would like to explore that further. I feel quite strongly that the petition is certainly going along the right lines. If we have any infrastructure projects and we want to future proof them, and we want to do 10 per cent of journeys by bike, we have to do that. We have to start joining up thinking. I would certainly like to question that from the Scottish Government, and I also noted that we did not manage to find that on the website. I would certainly like to inquire where that is. Anyone else? I think that we should write back to them and say just what is your position on the legal framework? I think that the committee has agreed to proceed on that basis. I know that the issue of the 10 per cent target has been raised quite a bit in the chamber, and I have discussed it privately or officially with the Pettle for Scotland and other bodies. As Stuart Stevenson said in a committee meeting the other day, it is always good to set a target high, because there is always a chance that you can reach it, rather than setting a target—a mediocre target—and not reaching it. There is a lot of merit in writing to the Government to seek further clarification on that. If we can move on to petition PE1658 by Wendy Stevenson on compensation for those who suffered neurological disability following administration of the placerex vaccine between 1988 and 1992. At our first consideration of the petition in June, we heard evidence from the petitioner, and we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Government and, in light of the historical nature of the issues raised in the petition, to seek the views and further background contextual information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Commission on Human Medicine. Submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner are included in the papers that you have received from the clerk. The Scottish Government notes the historical context and states that it has no plans to set up a scheme, as suggested by the petition, on the basis that the issues raised in the petition, including safety of medicines, the policy on compensation for vaccines damages, and administration of the vaccine damages payment scheme, and the policy for payments under that scheme are all reserved to the UK Parliament. The Scottish Government suggests that the committee may wish to contact the department for work and pensions as a body responsible for administration of the vaccine damages payment scheme. Now, the petitioner expresses her understanding that any payment under the vaccine damages payment scheme is not the same as compensation and that, by referring to the scheme as compensation, the Scottish Government is causing confusion. She considers that, in its submission, the Scottish Government acknowledges the damage caused by the Urabi—I think that's the correct pronunciation—containing placerics vaccine. She refers to examples of other injuries and disabilities that predate devolution, including hepatitis C, selidimide and exposure to asbestos. She considers that those have been acknowledged and compensated, noting in particular the damages asbestos-related conditions Scotland Act 2009. The petitioner considers that it is entirely unacceptable, in her words, for the Scottish Government to not set up a scheme for ex-Gracia payments, as called for in her petition, given the damage caused by the vaccine in this particular instance. Do the members have any comments? We didn't get anything back from the MHRE or the Commission on Human Medicines. They didn't respond to our request for further information, so I think that we should ask them again if they would respond. Most certainly, I will write to the DWP, as the Scottish Government suggests, and see where we go from there. I wonder how we close this look from the petitioner who is suggesting that. I don't know the answer to it, but I'm suggesting that the Scottish Government is being disingenuous of causing confusion around the idea of compensation. I'm not quite sure how we close that, because I'm not sure whether that's correct or not. How do we do that? I mean, you've heard of that, that we've been advised, but have we taken legal advice on that? No, we could certainly seek it. I mean, I think that it might be worth seeking it. The Government argue that it's a reserved matter. That would appear to be a fact, but they're also saying that by using the word compensation it's misleading, so we need to explore that one. Yeah, I think that we need to put that back to the Scottish Government and ask them to respond to the comments by the petitioner. Yeah, I think so. Can I have a back and close that look? Yeah, okay. Well, that action is agreed, and we'll also write to the DWP and chase up the MHRA and the commission on human medicines for our response. Agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Okay, if we can move on to petition P1662 by Janey Cringing and Lorraine Murray on improved treatment for patients with Lyme disease and associated tick-borne diseases. We first considered this petition in September when we heard evidence from the petitioners and agreed to seek the views of a range of stakeholders. The submissions received are supportive of the petition and discuss a range of issues around testing for treatment of and education about Lyme disease. We have our wealth of information, which members have had the opportunity to read, which I'll try to summarise as briefly as possible. In relation to testing, the Scottish Government advises that the testing laboratory at Rigmore leases with experts at Public Health England to ensure access to the most robust and scientifically justified testing regime available. However, the Scottish Government recognises that there are gaps in the effectiveness of the tests and notes that the NICE guidelines, which are expected to include consideration of the effectiveness of testing, are currently in development and will be considered by the Lyme Boreliosis subgroup once published. That is expected to be in April 2018. The Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland is represented on the group developing the NICE guidelines and adds that it is taking forward work with the University of Leicester on a new research method of blood tests. Lyme disease UK and Lyme disease action refer to uncertainty and complexity and patients being caught in the middle due to the current limitations of NHS blood tests. Lyme disease UK considers that testing should be extended and suggests upgrading the testing laboratory at Rigmore to a reference laboratory and extending its remit to cover all tick-borne infections. The Scottish Government notes that this is under consideration. All of the submissions acknowledge the need for greater awareness and education among both the public and professionals. The Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal College of General Practitioners highlight a range of work being taken forward, including the development of professional resources such as podcasts and webinars and appropriate information resources on websites, including Health Protection Scotland. The Royal College provides information about its e-learning course, which has registered more than 2,000 users since its launch in September 2014. The Royal College notes that it is difficult to measure the percentage of Scottish GPs who have completed the training as the course is not restricted to a GP or Scottish only audience. The petitioners indicate that they are encouraged by the general agreement among the responses that more needs to be done to tackle Lyme disease. They do, however, express a disappointment with the draft NICE guidelines, which they consider to be very narrow in scope. The petitioners welcome support for the suggestion of a specialist treatment centre and the argument for pilot specialist clinics. They also strongly support the elevation of the testing laboratory status to reference laboratory. The petitioners summarise the response with suggested actions, which they indicate that they would like to see taken forward within the Scottish national plan for tick-borne infections, similar to that developed in France. The petitioners also draw our attention to the French national plan. That was a brief summary. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action? Before we move to members, I welcome Alexander Burnett, who has joined us. He has had a significant interest in this issue for some time. I will ask him to come in later once we have had some contributions from the members. It is quite interesting that the NICE itself is suggesting that there is currently insufficient quality of evidence, so there is a recognition here that more has to be done. Given that the guidelines that were expected to be published in April 2018, I would suggest that we would defer further consideration until that point. Given that there is a recognition that the current system is not robust enough to see how they are going to tackle that. I agree. Given that it is a matter of months until we get the new guidelines from NICE, I am not sure that it would be productive for us to do anything until that, because we can consider where we go after we see those guidelines. Have we flagged NICE's concerns? We did flag it, so we are aware of it. Obviously, we have got to see what they do. The draft was not great, but hopefully, they might have revisited it. That is why I wanted to ensure that we have flagged to them. We will have to see what they publish. I am concerned that if they do not broaden them a wee bit, the fact that this is pretty awful. Can I ask Alexander Burnett to come in at this point? Thank you very much, convener, and I thank the petitioners for continuing to bring you this very important subject to the committee. I think that it is very disappointing that we are having to wait until April to see something that we are expecting to not be satisfactory. This is a subject that has been through Parliament over 10 years ago. It was the first time that we found records of cross-party groups or events happening to highlight it. Clearly, since then, nothing significant progress has been made. The evidence shows that, in the four years, only 3 per cent of GPs have taken up the courses available. The disease becomes ever more prevalent, and the risks to very important groups of people who we are encouraging to use and go into the countryside are increasing all the time from children on school groups and Duke of Edinburgh schemes, the increase in walkers. I am sure that I do not need to go on at length about that, but we are encouraging people to go out into the countryside and go back to urban areas where the disease is not being recognised. Still, very little seems to be done about it. I understand that four months might not seem a long time to wait for what is the next stage, but if we are already expecting that next stage to not be satisfactory, I think that it is going to seem an awfully long time to the petitioners and the others who have been campaigning with them. I would be disappointed if that is the only course of action. I am afraid that I do not know what else was in the remit of a petition's committee, but the petitioners have put forward proposals and suggested actions for a Scottish national plan for tick board infections. I wonder if the committee could push that in any way. I do not know how that comes about, but it is by requesting the Government to bring forward plans for such a plan. I will ask the minister to make some good points. At the very least, we show that it is within our remit to be able to write to NICE with the concerns around the draft proposals to say that we do not feel that they are tackling enough or a broader scope of the issue. That must be powerful within our remit to be able to do that. I totally take on board what Alexander is saying about having to wait for NICE. Until we see what NICE writes, we cannot demand a change. It is sort of a catch-22, is not it really? The guidelines can write to NICE and say that you should be looking at this and you should be doing this and that the draft is not satisfactory. We need to see that, but we cannot make demands of the Government. We can highlight them. I think that we already have highlighted that that needs to be reviewed, but they are going to say that automatically we will see what NICE says. We are going to go around in circles until NICE publish. Only once NICE have published, and indeed, if, as you suspect, it is not going to be satisfactory, we can say that this is not satisfactory and that we need to do something different. I largely agree with that. The Government will not do anything until April in that sense, but there is some merit in writing to NICE again to say that the draft does not seem satisfactory. Could you take that into consideration before final publication? I do not see that that is going to be possibly worthwhile, but I do not think that clearly nothing concrete will happen until April. I think that it is worth flagging up. We probably did, but it is worth saying again that we have had this meeting and there are significant concerns about the guidelines. Perhaps they could take that into consideration because it is not finalised yet. If we pre-empt a nice publication by suggesting that the draft publication does not meet what we were hoping, they will at least know that this is not going to go away. At some point, they will have to revisit it, so maybe by pre-empting it with a letter to NICE, that is the very least. Alexander Stewart, I think that the delay until the NICE report is disappointing is that it is understandable and everyone will understand the committee's position on that. Is there anything that can be done about pushing for the Scottish national plan in those actions? Again, it might be an idea to wait for the NICE guidelines to come out before that is pursued, would you agree? I do not think that the Government will commit to that until we have seen the NICE guidelines. We are in a catch-22 situation at the moment. We really have to wait until April until the NICE guidelines come out. However, I would share the petitioners' disappointment and members' disappointment with the narriness of the current NICE guidelines. There is certainly a need to write to NICE just to make sure that our views are on the radar in advance of April 2018. If we are anticipating that we are not going to get what we want from NICE, is it worth scheduling a meeting evidence for very, very close to when, soon after they come out, so that we ring fence the time so that we can address it very quickly and maybe potentially save the date for people that we might want to take evidence from, so that there is not then another delay when NICE comes out and then we have to schedule in down the line? At least that way, we are not letting it drag out any longer than it has to. I do think that it is really frustrating. None of us want to have to wait until April, but I think that there is just a pragmatic realism in that. However, if we could constatina the process, a wee bit, by planning ahead. We can ask the clerks to take note of that and they can come back to a future meeting with a proposal for ring fencing sometime for that evidence session, but I agree with you 100 per cent. That has been dragging on for too long, and it needs to be sorted to coin a phrase. Are there any other comments on this at the moment? If we are going to plan ahead, it might be worth even asking the petitioners who they think we should be taking evidence from, obviously not only themselves but other individuals that they would particularly feel would be relevant. I think that the clerks will take that on board, as a matter of course. We are agreed with that course of action, and I thank the petitioners for their response to this very serious issue that I have been following for a number of years myself. I look forward to progress on it in the near future. If we can move on to petition PE1664, it is a continued petition on greater protection for mountain hares by Harry Highton on behalf of one kind. At our last consideration of this petition in September, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, SNH, the Scottish Land and the States and James Hatton Institute and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Members will note that some of the submissions received made reference to the fact that SNH recently conducted a review of existing evidence on mountain hare populations. The findings concluded that evidence of a national decline in mountain hares is not conclusive, but North East Scotland data shows a dramatic decline in numbers since 2003. As there is no evidence of a long-term decline overall, the Scottish Government does not support a nationwide moratorium on mountain hare culls. However, the petitioners have the view that, given the lack of evidence available, the unregulated and unmonitored killing of mountain hares should not be allowed to continue. SNH intends to address the status of hares on North East Grousemore Moors through the new principles of moorland management guidance on sustainable hare management, which has currently been drafted by the Moorland Forum. However, the petitioner raised concerns that there has been no consultation outside of the forum membership or transparency as to how the guidance is being developed. The Scottish Government also intends to set up an independently led group to examine how to ensure Grousemore management is sustainable and compliant with the law and the control of mountain hares will be considered as part of this review. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action? I think that the obvious one, convener, is the fact that the concerns raised by the petitioner around their inability to participate in any kind of guidance. Perhaps one of the obvious things for me would be to ask the Scottish Government how they can allow contributions from the public on that guidance. We are agreed to ask the Scottish Government what opportunity there may be for members of the public to contribute to the development of the principles of moorland management guidance and for more information about the scope of the independent group on Grousemore management in relation to the control of mountain hares. That is agreed. If we can move on to petition PE1681 on adult consensual incestuous relationships and marriage. This is in similar terms to two previous petitions lodged by the same petitioner. The most recent petition was considered by us at our meeting on 15 September 2016. At that meeting, we agreed to close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Law Commission undertook a report on this issue as recently as 2007 and concluded that the majority of you at the time favoured retaining the offence and the current definition. Do members have any comments? I went to close the petition. We are agreed to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Law Commission undertook a report on this issue as recently as 2007 and concluded that the majority of you at the time favoured retaining the offence and the current definition. The petition is closed. We have come to the end of consideration of petitions in public, although we have one further petition at PE1458 to discuss in private. In closing this meeting, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I can also take this opportunity to thank the clerks and all those who have worked behind the scenes to support the committee's work over the past year. Their assistance is greatly appreciated and I hereby close the public part of this meeting.