 I welcome members to the 20th meeting in 2015 in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and remind everyone to switch off mobile phones as they can affect the broadcasting system. We have apologies today from Dave Thompson. Agenda item 1 is for the committee to agree to take items 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 is for members to consider some cross-party group rule changes and item 4 is to consider correspondence received from the Public Petitions Committee. Do members agree to take these items in private? We agree to take them in private. Item 2 on today's agenda is for the committee to consider an update on cross-party groups. We have got a considerable amount of material in front of us related to the cross-party groups but, in particular, we might want to focus on action that we should or may take on the cross-party groups on Japan, park homes and video games technology. I invite comments from colleagues on the committee. Fiona Hysliffton. On reading this extensive report, thank you very much for going through it all for us. I think that the fact that drug and alcohol misuse, Japan, park homes and video games have all been given more than one opportunity to come into line with the rules that cover cross-party groups, given the fact that they still have not managed to come within those rules, I would suggest that they be disbanded. On the drug and alcohol abuse, I understand that there have been two attempts to have an AGM that turned out to be in court and that they have another one scheduled, so at least we might consider recognising that they are making some efforts. We can decide otherwise that that is not sufficient, but I just think that perhaps there is a slight difference for that group compared to Japan, park homes and video technology that we may wish to think about. I think that we have enough MSPs around who are interested in going to the group, so I think that we should not differentiate. I am not trying to lead us to a particular conclusion, but I am merely pointing out two attempts. If it is one attempt, fire it up, but I think that two attempts show that there just aren't enough MSPs who are interested in the subject and we have so many cross-party groups. Yes, I am in your hands. I would be inclined to agree. The rules around cross-party groups are quite explicit and easy to get any help and assistance if cross-party groups require it. They know when they are meant to meet, they know the standards they are meant to maintain. Do you also meet GDAP members in a cross-party group because there aren't going to be enough MSPs, so we can always be encouraged to attend, even if it is not for the whole meeting. I just feel that we shouldn't. Right. I sense from the discussion that we are having here that we would be minded to deregister the four groups that have been made reference to, such as Japan, Parkhomes, video games technology and the drug and alcohol abuse. Is anyone otherwise minded? No, right. In that case, we are quite clear that we wish to deregister the groups that are without any question in the default of the rules. Having said that, we have a full set of reports. Are there any other matters that people want to put on the record in relation to what we have before us? I think that one other item that I would like to raise is the co-operatives. We didn't get a report on it, did we? I didn't see it in the papers. I don't remember to be honest. My thoughts on the co-operatives is that, in the summary that we have, although they did have other meetings scheduled to meet the two meetings per year, all of them were in quarry, so perhaps again I wouldn't say deregulated at this point, but it's a reminder to them that, if they can't be quarried, it will be considered as a group that's not functioning. I think that that's inappropriate. I understand that there may have been some slight confusion about some of the communication, so I think that that would be an inappropriate interim decision for us to take. I stress the word interim. It helps those MSPs who are trying to attend or who are actively pursuing the issues. It gives them, if you like, a bit of a stick to hit colleagues with, and I think that, from that point of view, it's probably not unhelpful to them to do that. It was a way of putting you in agreement. Right colleagues, any other matters arising from the reports on cross-party groups? Nope, I get the sense that there is nothing more that ends agenda item 2 and ends the public part of the meeting. We now move into private session.