 Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2017 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Can I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent? Although I think that we might indulge Mr MacGregor in a glance at his phone occasionally over the course of the proceedings. Our first item for the committee is to take evidence on two proposed cross-party groups. The first group will have to consider today the proposed CPG on future of football in Scotland, and I would like to welcome Fulton MacGregor MSP to the meeting, who is the proposed convener of the group. I would invite Fulton MacGregor to make an opening statement about the purpose of the group. Thank you, convener. Thanks for the welcome and giving me the opportunity to come to committee. It is very different being at this side of the table, I have to say. Thanks also for just to explain to members who might not know what yesterday was our due date, so hence why I have been given permission to check the phone. I do not plan to speak for long. I think that the merits of this group largely speak for themselves. Football is Scotland's national game, yet for years our national team has under performed at the national stage. I think that we can look at countries such as Iceland that have got substantially lower populations, where football is not as much as part of the fabric of their country and who are performing way beyond the world stage in Iceland, as is of course only one example. I am not suggesting for a minute that the cross-party group take over the running of the SFA, not of course in any way, but I think that it can provide a platform for all organisations and stakeholders to come together with fans and associations to discuss and promote the game. Across all other areas of civic life in Scotland, it is everyone's job to do the best that we can. We are all on other committees and we talk about Government, councils, voluntary and private sector organisations working in partnership in harmony to get the best outcome for Scotland's institutions. I believe that in my discussions with the SFA about setting up this group, it has been open to that as well. Football in that respect should not be any different. There is also a problem with access to the game in this country in our conversations with the Scottish Disabled Supporters Association, who I am delighted to say will be part of the group if it is approved. They have revealed some troubling information about the struggle faced by many as they tend their chosen clubs games. Also, in terms of young people's access to the game, I used Iceland earlier as an example to hold up high. They have made it very easy for young people to get involved and to get the support that they need to develop as a player. In many areas of Scotland, it has been talked about in the chamber a lot. We have moved to the 3G, 4G pitches, which are far too pricey for young people. You are talking about hundreds of pounds to book out those pitches. I know that many members around the table have discussed that in the chamber. It makes sense to have all the weather pitches, but the charges are far too much. Going on the days, it seems that I can remember and probably the other members too, but we just went out and played football on the street or any bit of grass would do. There are health and safety issues around that, and I am not suggesting that I feel return to that. I think that we need to capture some of the random play aspects that were available before and whether that is working with local authorities and other organisations to reduce the costs. Everybody will read the aims of the group. We hope to write a platform for discussion with a view to improving all aspects of our national game. If I may, I would like to touch on the MSP membership of the group as it stands. I am disappointed that no female MSP has joined the group. The members who were there were the ones who responded. However, I believe that the wider membership of the group will ensure that issues that are faced by women and girls in football in Scotland are kept in sharp focus. The secretary of the group is herself a former Scotland Women's International. I should say that the secretary of the proposed group is very well highly regarded in the game. The SWFA has agreed to play a full part in the group as well, and has been very supportive. I will continue to encourage all members to participate in the group and become involved, but I just wanted to put on record that I was aware of the all-male make-up of the group. It is something that we will seek to challenge within the group if it is set up. I will take any questions. I think that this is a very timely future of football that we reflect on. It is 50 years now since perhaps that high watermark for Scottish football in 1967. However, what I would like to focus on is particular aspects of grass roots. I am a member of the health and sport and committing access to sport is something that we have been looking at more generally. Have you made any approaches to some of the football teams at the lower levels who are engaging in social enterprises? Their activity goes beyond simply facilitating youngsters to play football, but to play a much more positive and constructive role in their communities. Is football a social enterprise and is it social good as an area that you will consider throughout the group? I think that that is an area where we would look to develop and, obviously, the group has not been set up yet, so we have not had an initial meeting other than the one to discuss the aims and objectives, but that is an area where I am very passionate about as well. If the group goes ahead and I am convener, it is something that I would like to see more around. For example, my own club in Colbride, Gilbert and Rovers, has a rich history in that recently. During the summer and other school holidays, they provide a training camp for youngsters, and the club is right over from my offices. We get to see it because a lot of this time is during recess, and hundreds of kids are involved. They are dropped off early in the morning, and they are picked up at 3 o'clock. That is all day getting that sort of interaction, so it is definitely an area that I would like to look more at. I am delighted that you are looking at access, affordability and the cost impaired, because that can be a real barrier to a number of individuals who want to get involved and participate. The whole idea of getting community engagement, which Mr Ath has touched on with being the whole social aspect and community-based, is very important. In all of those, what will be your main drive at trying to achieve early days if the group is set up? I think that it is about accessing and widening that access out. Two of the areas that I mentioned have already had some provisional discussions with the supporters' disability forum, and they have been very forthcoming and very welcoming of the group. I would like to do a bit more work around that area. The group has described that some stadiums in Scotland are more accessible, and some clubs are more accessible than others, and there will be perhaps an opportunity to look into that a bit more and try to encourage all clubs to be at a similar level. In Fairmont, that is possibly one of the better examples when I spoke to the forum. That is an idea that we can invite in Fairmont to come and see what it has done to be that and see if there are any lessons learned elsewhere. I also mentioned women's football in the role that the organisations that represent women's football will have in the group. I am hoping that that will help to extend things out. Obviously, we have the championships coming up as well, and we will be all very proud of our team going forward. I hope that they will do well. I have in my constituency one of the SFE centres of excellence for football in Greater High School. Indeed, they have just won that under 18 Scottish Shield, which I attended at Hamden, and I was delighted to do so in support of them. Given that schools are an important role, when I was a youngster a long, long time ago, the school estate was open and not closed. In the summer months, we had access to the football pitches, and that all changed for very reasonable reasons. They are now fenced off and that access is not there for people. Have you engaged with local authorities and invited local authorities, since they could play a very important part, both in terms of their curriculum and the schools, but also the access to the school estates? I think that it is an idea that we would definitely propose the group to look at, because I mentioned in the opening statement that, with all the situations in our constituency, I have the brand new 4G pitches at St Ambrose in Co-bridge, and you drive by that during the summer, and you have this massive area of land, just unused. Do not get me wrong, on a Saturday morning or whatever, there are maybe various teams on it, probably charged quite a lot to be there, but you drive by it at other points in the summer, and there is nobody on it. That area used to actually be, for everybody who knows the area, the SP side pitches, and we are all just used to playing on it. We definitely need to do some work with local authorities in terms of making those areas more accessible for young people, but that is something that I would like the group definitely to look at. It is something that members will know that I have raised in the chamber, even with discussions around play in various other aspects as well. It is obviously for the group to decide its own work programme, and you probably should not take advice from someone who knows as little about football as I do, but in the last session, the Scottish Government did take forward some, perhaps, tentative proposals on fan ownership, and I wonder whether that is something that you have discussed, either looking at the current status of fan ownership in Scotland or following up on the moves that the Scottish Government took in the last session, following some cross-party pressure to see what the further opportunities might be to expand fan ownership and look at the governance of private ownership in the sport and whether that is working well in the interests of fans or communities? It has not been discussed yet, but I think that it is something that can be an agenda item on the cross-party group, and it links into Mr Arthur's point as well, just about what clubs are doing to manage their own situations and social enterprises and fan ownership. I think that all that stuff is underlinked. I think that, for me probably, it is one of the ways that we need to consider going forward, particularly for the smaller clubs. How they now survive in the kind of modern climate. It is probably worth noting that when we talk about football being Scotland's national game, we fact that a lot of people are fully aware of it as a pairhead. There are more people going to games in Scotland than any other country in Europe, but that still does not help the smaller clubs who are struggling with attendance. That is something that we definitely want to look at. You also raised a good point in your opening remarks, Mr Harvey, that when you said that you did not know a lot about football, I apologise on my phone, you did not know. That is actually the purpose of the group. It is to be inclusive for everybody, whether they have an interesting football directly or not, because being such a big part of Scottish civic life, it does impact on all of our constituency, so thanks for asking that. Good morning, Fulton. I am curious about, in item number 4, the attempt to make the game affordable, accessible and safe. That would be for people participating, but I am interested in looking at affordability for people to go and watch games, whether they are big games or big season games. I am aware that ticket prices can be quite high, so is that something that you would be considering in the group? The cross-party group can only make suggestions to give a forum to have a discussion on it and, hopefully, gently influence behaviour of clubs. Obviously, the prices of tickets for matches are down to clubs, but what I would like to do through the group is look at where examples have been positive. For example, to use Albin Roars again a couple of seasons ago, they had a buy-your-season ticket for whatever you want, and it ended up people with maybe a wee bit of money, but if people could afford it, they could buy it for a penny or a pound, I think it was. I think that it was murderable, but I have done a similar thing, convener. What might be the best way to do that is to bring clubs who have had successful initiatives around reducing ticket prices and seeing whether that can be replicated elsewhere? Mr Scott, thank you very much. I think that this is a very good idea. You will, of course, be aware, given your involvement in future football in Scotland, that there is a level of unhappiness with some of the legislation surrounding crowd behaviour at football matches at the moment. Will that be one of the things that you will be considering when you are a cross-party group? We do not propose to have discussions on the anti-social behaviour at football laws because there are already parliamentary processes around that, so there has been a bill passed and, obviously, I think that James Kelly is bringing forward a member's bill, so there are parliamentary processes already in place for that. However, if the membership of the group and people are coming to us say that a future point of that became more of an issue, then, given the scope of the group, we would reconsider that. However, the initial discussions in setting that up is more around accessibility in the other forms, although it has to be acknowledged that, if there is difficult behaviour at football matches, that can obviously affect accessibility because people would then choose not to take young children to games where they suspect that type of behaviour might be happening. At this point in time, no, it is not, but I think that the group would expect that if the group evolves and wants to take into account that, then we would do that. However, I am aware that the parliamentary process is in place at the moment around those issues. I do not really have any question for you. I would say that anything that seeks to promote people being active is good, and anything that seeks to ensure that Scotland returns to the top flight of international football is good. I wish you very well. The questions are finished. Thank you, Mr MacGregor, for attending this morning. Our decision will be taken later in the agenda this morning, and you will be informed of our decision as quickly as possible. I will suspend shortly to allow witnesses to change your work. The second group that we have to consider today is proposed CPG on rare genetic and undiagnosed conditions. I would like to welcome Bob Boris MSP to the meeting and Bob is a proposed convener of the group. I invite Mr Doris to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. Perhaps at the start of an opening statement, I would like to put on record thanks to two individuals. As we seek to re-register this group only under new terms of reference, I would readily acknowledge them. The first one would be Alistair Kent of Genetic Alliance UK, who is stepping down from that role, who, over the years, not just in Scotland but across the UK, has done a huge effort to draw to people's attentions the plight of those living with rare, undiagnosed and genetic conditions. I think that it is only fair to do that, and the other would be the former MSP, Malcolm Chisholm, who was co-communer of last session's cross-party group, along with myself, who did a massive job in really leading in relation to the cross-party group. I was co-communer. I think that it is fair to say that Mr Chisholm is a real force of nature, and I hope to follow in those footsteps, at least partially, should this group be re-registered. I would also like to talk about one of my first experiences in relation to the issues around the cross-party group. In the last session, I was deputy chair of the health and sport committee, and we received a number of petitions, one in relation to rare diseases that come through the petitions committee of this Parliament. It eventually led to an inquiry into access to medicines within the Scottish Parliament, and it most important did it in a non-partisan, non-political way at the last session's health and sport committee. The Scottish Government responded in a similar fashion, and we drove real change. One of the reasons that was possible was because of the cross-party group and the networking effect that those living with the rare conditions, their families and the campaign groups getting together, can have in relation to that driving real momentum in that area. I want to put those things on the record, but I also want to put some brief facts on the record as well, convener, if time will allow at this point. The cross-party group on rare diseases existed in the last session under important work relating to issues affecting the rare disease community. Topics covered included access to new medicines for very rare conditions, improving research opportunities for rare diseases, gaps in specialist nursing provision and improving co-ordination of specialist care services. The group played an important role in monitoring the implementation of the plan for rare disease in Scotland, facilitating an opportunity for stakeholder involvement in the development of work undertaken by the Scottish Government in this area. The cross-party group for rare genetic and undiagnosed conditions will build on that work but expand the remit to include genetic and undiagnosed conditions. That is the difference in the terms of reference that I was referring to, convener. In Scotland, there are over 2,000 babies born with a genetic condition every single year. That equates to one in every 25 babies born. In addition, there are over 6,000 recognised rare conditions, estimated to affect over 300,000 people within Scotland. While there are many different rare and genetic conditions, there are many similar issues facing patients and their families. Regardless of their specific conditions, many people affected by genetic and rare conditions report similar challenges, including difficulties in obtaining timely diagnosis, difficulties in accessing appropriate specialist care support, difficulties in accessing appropriate information, difficulties in accessing treatment and lack of co-ordination of care. While there are a number of condition-specific cross-party groups, there are no cross-party groups that adequately address the challenges that are facing patients who are affected by rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. In that context, I am seeking permission from the committee to re-register with the different terms of reference in this particular cross-party group, convener. Thank you very much. Can I invite any questions? Good morning, Mr Torres. One of the stated purposes is to act as a channel of communication between the Scottish Parliament and families affected. I was just wondering in the membership, and perhaps you can be aware of the work of the committee in its previous incarnation in the last session, how the group, you envisage, could be functioning in terms of its relationship with affected families and individuals? Would that be through members of the group? Would it be through other means? I wonder if you could perhaps elaborate on that. Yes, absolutely. Perhaps I could give a very specific example, a haste and tad, before the group has been re-registered. I sponsored rare disease day in the Scottish Parliament, hoping to become convener of this particular cross-party group. A rather inspirational lady spoke about her experience with EDS syndrome. I'll stick to the acronym rather than mispronounce the syndrome itself, but it was a powerful speech about how there was deficiencies in managed clinical network issues with diagnosis and a variety of other issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport had been at the start of the meeting, but I'd actually missed that particular speech and had to leave other diary commitments, so the person making the speech worked with myself and through the yet to be registered members of the cross-party group to contact the Scottish Government and there's now been meetings and engagement to improve that situation. There's a very specific example where maybe we're not seeking to be another health committee for the Scottish Parliament, that's most clearly what we're not seeking to be, but there are time constraints in all MSPs and there's time constraints in all outstanding committees of this Parliament, and there was one example where we could pick up an issue of a genetic condition and move on it very quickly. Individuals are entitled to join the cross-party group in their own right, or they can join through one of the various organisations listed. You'll see on the provisional forum that it does list organisations, but there's nothing to preclude any individual from seeking to be a member in their own right. The philosophy behind the membership of the cross-party group would be an inclusive one and it would be to be openly engaged in work and partnership where we can with committees of the Parliament and with the Scottish Government. That's a further question. You and your opening statement and reference to work group had previously done in regard to access to medicines and you state the access to new medicines for often and under often conditions is going to be a key aspect of your work. I just wonder if you know the challenges that we face. We're going to be approaching one year since the Montgomery view with the SDMC etc. How do you seek to advance that agenda over the course of this session within the group? I think that the first thing that I would say is that the core way to advance that agenda is the health and sport committee working partnership with the Scottish Government, as I'm sure they will in this session, as they did in the last session. I would also put on record that those are really worthwhile challenges that we face because people with various conditions in this country have never had such significant access to new medicines, including those with rare conditions and with genetic conditions. The issues of technology and scientific advances just move on so quickly and expectations increase so so speedily as well and quite rightly so. There's a challenge for government and a challenge for the health and sport committee of this Parliament in relation to the Montgomery review and other stakeholders seeking to make sure that it's like a continuous review. We need access to medicines in this country. I think that history shows that if we're not careful, those with conditions where there are only three, four or five families in Scotland can be squeezed out of that debate. In fact, the debate in relation to rare diseases was pretty silent until—not the cross-party group, but until Rare Disease UK—martialed various families together, inspirational families in realising that, together, there's nothing rare about having a rare condition. That was the purpose of that particular organisation, and that was certainly the purpose of the cross-party group. It's not to lead the political debate on it, but it's to provide communication, link and networking of various families and groups seeking to support those who are living with rare and genetic conditions and need un-diagnosed conditions. Anything that we can do to make sure that when that review is progressed further, I'm sure that they won't be squeezed out of the Scottish Government's on the ball with that, but we don't do anything for granted and I want to make sure that the cross-party group has a role to play in relation to that. I agree absolutely. It's very important. I think that a lot of the decisions and the processes for decision-taking in terms of access to medicine can be very highly complicated and very challenging. Often, it's struck me, certainly, that engaging with my own constituents can be a disconnect and a lack of understanding of what the various motivations are between why certain decisions are taking. I think that there's clearly an opportunity to provide a platform for information and communication and for participation, and I think that that's something to be commended. Thank you very much. Good morning. I just wanted to ask about the group's external membership. I'm very happy to see this group being recreated. Obviously, the issues around drug treatment are one in which there's sometimes a tension between evidence-based decisions and lobbying efforts by companies involved. Can I ask whether any of your external members are private sector organisations, drug companies or others, or are funded by them, and whether you've discussed as a group what your approach would be if private sector organisations such as drug companies wanted to become external members? I think that that's a really important question. I don't know if I've got all the answers to that, but I can perhaps give an initial comment and point out that, if we look back at the last session of the Health and Sport Committee, my relationship with pharmaceutical companies was one of constructive scrutiny, in which I thought that they were overcharged and overpromised for what their medicines could deliver and that the people of Scotland were not getting the best deal or best served by the pharmaceutical companies. They do, indeed, under very strict roles of engagement to various degrees fund various patient groups. I do not know in relation to each of the patient group organisations listed here, but I think that it would be a good practice. I don't think that it's required, but I think that it would be a good practice for transparency to have a statement in relation to that. I intend to check with those organisations and make that a public record, but I think that it should be a centralised public record rather than each individual MSP or individual member of society having to look at the organisations and cross-reference that with other public record information. Let's get it centralised, let's get it in one place and I'm happy to provide that. I'm not sure if we need a policy, a protocol on how we deal with pharmaceutical companies—we're not here for pharmaceutical companies—we would be there for the patients and the families of rare genetic and diagnosed conditions, but I'd be happy to put that on the agenda at our first appropriately constituted meeting. It also gave me the opportunity, Mr Harvie, to say again that I think that drug companies have to do a lot more in relation to affordability and that they should be paid more based on the outcomes of not clinical trials but on the real-life outcomes of medicines that are once taken by patients in wider societies, not cash up front but cash on delivery for the outcomes that they claim from clinical trials. I'm happy to put that on the record again today. That's very helpful. The committee has discussed the issue of private sector organisations being external CPG members against which there is no rule and it does happen, but perhaps we've acknowledged that there's some thought needed in that area. However, I'm very happy to hear the response from Bob Doris and it's a very constructive approach. I'll begin by declaring an interest as a member of this proposed cross-party group and someone who serves as a genetic condition. I'm interested in two fronts in that regard. Therefore, I'm interested in the element of genetic and genomic research. Do you see a way of encouraging that type of research? Do you see a way, Mr Doris, of essentially collaborative working with other cross-party groups who have an interest in that? I think that I'll deal with the last point of your question first. I think that the proliferation of cross-party groups in this Parliament necessitates joint working quite frankly. That's something that your committee has been grappling with over a number of years, a much-replicated overlap in relation to cross-party groups. I don't think that this is one, but I think that it would be incumbent upon this cross-party group to feel like mainstream its work so that we can identify something that would be of interest to another cross-party group. Let's have that joint working and do that. Do you remind me of the first part of your question, Mr Scott? Just a way of encouraging genomic research. I was trying to dodge that bullet, I guess, as far as Malcolm Chisholm was sitting beside me who has done a lot more in relation to that, but I got a very inspirational presentation from NHS questions in relation to the human genome project at the rare disease day at the Scottish Parliament. Amazing work, both publicly and privately funded in both Glasgow and Edinburgh in relation to that. I don't always get the science of it, but my politician, I don't have to get the science of it. I just have to get the huge opportunities that there is to transform the lives of people in Scotland, the lens and breadth of the country. I think that I have my knowledge base up around that. I know that there's a potential proposed visit to one of the sites that I'm hoping to go along and find out more about, but anything that the cross-party group can do to help to promote that, and I have my surveys around it as well, it's really important. It's worth putting on the record that when various health-related issues, whether it's the human genome project or whether it's clinical trials or whatever, Scotland is probably the best country in the world for collecting data. Some would say that we collect too much data, particularly in relation to health. If you look at the DNA footprint of Scotland and the data that we collect, we are best placed. We're world-leading by default in terms of the opportunities in doing some of that stuff, and I think that the human genome project is another example in relation to that. In my last answer to Mr Harry, I was slightly critical of pharmaceutical companies, but it's also worth putting on record that if pharmaceutical companies are looking for the best place for their real-life clinical trials, given the data that we collect in this country, Scotland is world-leading. I thank you for that answer, which is very comprehensive, and I would also like to put on my record my appreciation of Malcolm Chisholm's work as a previous co-convener, and indeed he's a much missed member of this Parliament. I'm very much welcome the fact that it's going to be reformed, and you've come here today to sell that point, and I think that you've done that extremely well. The areas that you're going to examine are health and social care provision. That is quite complicated in how you progress that and dealing with some of the scientists and the clinicians that will be part of that process. You've touched on how we're world-leading in the world sector. How are you going to manage to progress that, and how are you planning to do anything along any other lines? Are you going to talk to some other groups to another Parliament across the United Kingdom, or are you going to look at things that are happening elsewhere outside in Europe? Much of that has a broad base, and it gives many people the opportunity to examine what is happening within the health and social care provision. Yes to all of that, but as I elaborate a slight health warning in relation to that, I will be the convener of the new cross-party group. Although it has to be parliamentary in nature, the point of it is to engage and listen and allow the stakeholders to shape some of that agenda. I would want to set a hair-running saying that one of the things that we're going to look at is how health and social care services meet the needs of those who are living with rare genetic and undiagnosed conditions, and that's going to be our priority. There are various matters in there, including monitoring and contributing to the implementation of the Scottish plan for rare diseases in Scotland. If the stakeholders decide that they want to scrutinise that more rather than the service provided with the new integrity joint boards across Scotland, for example, I'd be partially led by the groups and the patients that are involved. I think that that sounds like a really good idea. I think that it's one that the member might want to make at the next meeting of the cross-party group of rare genetic and undiagnosed conditions. I would certainly welcome you on board and would love your experience in relation to that, but they're open-minded to exploring that further, absolutely. Last week, I participated in a debate on myalgic encephalitis. Yesterday, there was a debate led by Ash Denham on neurofibromatosis. Obviously, there's a lot of awareness raising that is conducted in Parliament in member's debates, which is a great way to do that. I welcome the cross-party group to be reformed so that we can continue to raise awareness and bring everybody together, because there is, obviously, inequality in the provision of care. Last night, I met a nurse who is a genetic nurse based in Greater Glasgow, but she covers the south-west of Scotland, Aaron Dumfries and Galloway, so it's really rural and it's really challenging. However, one of the things that I'm interested in is GPs—British Medical Association—would they be linked with that? Raising awareness among GPs is often a good way to start, because they are the first stop that people have. Obviously, we have challenges with GP numbers already in Scotland. What would be your thoughts on engaging the medical practitioners? I would assume that, when we wanted to look at that particular area, we would get certain key professionals in, whether we want to come from the Royal College of General Practitioners, for example, or, as I said in my opening statement, with EDS syndrome, one of the issues with that was the length of time that it takes for diagnosis and the awareness of GPs. There are managed clinical networks and guidelines in relation to those matters, so sometimes you can take it from the grassroots, making sure that GPs on the ground are familiar with it and get the information out there, but sometimes it has to make sure that the clinical pathways and the managed clinical networks are fit for purpose as well. I think that that's a very good idea. I'm just conscious that we do throw a lot at GPs that are generalists by nature, so sometimes it's making sure that, when they see a potential issue, they have the confidence to move through the appropriate referral pathway. I agree absolutely, because it's not always a GP that is a specialist or recognising diagnostic treatment pathways, but advanced nurse practitioners might be included as part of the managed clinical network for assessing, diagnosing and helping people to get on the right treatment pathways. I would absolutely support that. Not only will patients get a quicker, speedier service, but they'll actually get a far superior service, because a nurse specialist becomes a real expert at doing something every single week. Various medical clinicians, doctors maybe do things once in a while, so actually the nurse specialist gets really quite slick on top of the game in relation to doing that. It's a better service very often, but it's also much cheaper for the NHS, so it's certainly something that we have to expand more on. I think that that's the direction of travel. Again, I think that the challenge in this area has been—it's the challenge that we've prevented to spend more generally, isn't it, in service redesign. You have to invest to save later down the line, so there's been a significant expansion of nurse specialists, but who are we? You sit here as MSPs and see to other groups that, as yet, don't have nurse specialists at all, while others are campaigning for an expansion of their nurse specialist service, and they're in the rub. I think that, within that context, rare genetic undiagnosed conditions again could be squeezed out if we're not careful, so that's why I think that you raise a really interesting point, as Mr Stewart did as well, in relation to those care pathways that are being designed, just making sure that it's all there for those living with their conditions as well. I think that that's the end of the question, so that I should declare an interest as well, as someone who's likely to be a member of the cross-party group that's established. Mr Doris is very sweet-talking. The decision will be taken at agenda item 2. Thank you very much for coming to committee this morning. I'll suspend shortly to let a witness leave. Now come to agenda item 2, which is a consideration of the two proposed party groups from this morning. Can I invite any comments about the future of football in Scotland? We can dent to agree that, CPG. The second CPG was rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. Any comments from members? We can dent to agree that cross-party group. Thank you very much. We now move to agenda item 3, which is a consideration of a draft annual report. I would invite any general comments from members this morning. Could I maybe start with one? I want to thank the clerks for the work on producing the draft report, which I think covers a lot of what we have done. I wonder if it would be possible to have a paragraph just to note our engagement with the work of the Presiding Officer in his review of parliamentary procedures, just to say that we have had a couple of witness sessions covering that area. The report does not recognise the work that we have done in engaging the Presiding Officer's review of parliamentary procedures. I wonder if that paragraph could be added in. We can dent for the clerks to draft something that can be approved by email with the group. Is the rest of the report approved? We now move into private session.