 across that meeting in 2016 of the Public Petitions Committee. Can I remind all the pressants to turn off any mobile phone or electronic devices in the case of the disruptor recordings? Our first item of business this morning is a decision on whether to take item 3 on our agenda in consideration of a draft legacy paper in private and also whether to consider the draft legacy paper in private at future meetings. Agree? They are a consideration of 11 continued petitions. Pauline Bethelency 1 is the first P.E. 1.223 by Ron Beatty on school bus safety. Mr Beatty is usually in the public gallery. I'm not sure whether he is here today. He has had some ill health. If he's not here, we send our best wishes to him. It's an issue that he's pursued for some considerable time so I hope that he's I hope that he is in good health in the near future, but we have Stewart Stevenson as MSP at the meeting. Stewart, you have been as dedicated to pursuing this as the petitioner, so I will give you an opportunity to make some comments before we deliberate on the petition. Thank you very much and I am sure that Ron Beatty will very much appreciate your good wishes. He is making a good recovery, but he has probably not been well enough to make the quite lengthy journey from Gameray down to Edinburgh on this occasion. The paper that the committee has in front of it refers to the petitioner's latest response, and I think that the bottom line is at paragraph 17. Transport Scotland are saying that it is considering implications when the Glasgow pilot sees whether any further action is required, and I would simply ask the committee, under the powers that it has, to include that in its legacy paper, to consider that as an option, because there is clearly an action that is still outstanding, and that is such an important subject, not simply for Ron Beatty and my constituency, but across Scotland in ensuring that we have the best possible outcomes for school transport and, indeed, transport of young people all together. The colleagues have any comments to make? I think that that is not an unreasonable request. I just think that there is a bit of mileage, and I do not mean that as a pun, but I still think that there is a bit of interest in that that we can continue to pursue, especially in relation to that suggestion. I am more than happy that, if the members agree that we add that to our legacy paper and ask the next committee to continue to look into that. Can I suggest that we write to Transport Scotland, based on Mr Stevenson's comments, to find out when the expected evaluation of the Glasgow pilot to be carried out, because that has, effectively, dragged on for a number of years from Mr Stevenson. I think that you are still the Minister for Transport when we dealt with this initially, Mr Stevenson. It is about trying to get some conclusion to that, but I would like to put on record that it is useful to see the exchanges between the Department of Transport and the Scottish Transport in relation to trying to get some clarification in the legislation that can be applied and transferred to ensure that we can take the appropriate action that Mr Stevenson has been calling for for over six years. I think that there is a general agreement that we take the petition forward by adding it to our legacy paper and pursue the correspondence that John suggested. I think that we have agreement on that. The next petition is PE1408 by Andrea MacArthur on updating of pernicious anemia Vitamin B12, Efficiency, Understanding and Treatment. Members have a few on this one. At least welcome progress, if I can put it that way. I do not know that there is anything outstanding that we can take forward as it seems to have reached the end of the correspondence that we can be involved in. Members agree? Angus? In the recommendation that we could perhaps alert the Scottish Government and the Scottish Hematology Society to the petitioners' latest response, there is some merit in that suggestion. We could still close it but we just get that clarification. Thanks very much. Just before you close that petition, I just obviously want to draw your attention to the links between the thyroid petition and all the issues around thyroid and the testing of B12, which is quite often not actually done fully for thyroid patients, and it's quite a problem for thyroid patients too. Okay, we'll just maybe take that on board when we're considering that petition and see if we can pick up the point. John, do you think there's still something we need to do with it? I think there is. I don't know whether it's just me, but I seem to be reading a different interpretation into the petitioner's response to the issues that have been raised, because the petitioner certainly, in page 2 of her response, indicates that there's still not sufficient guidance being issued in relation to treatment, and I should have declared on interest. My wife receives regular injections for this condition and receives injections, and I know that there's no, as I've been reminded on a number of occasions by ministers, there's no guidance in terms of how many injections a patient should be, or how often a patient should get an injection for the vitamin B12 deficiency. But the reality is that there still doesn't seem to be enough being done to treat the patient rather than treat what GPs and others may think as the solution to that. I think that the petitioner raises the issue about the effect that the frequency of current injections has on some of the patients, because of the time lag between getting an injection and receiving the next injection, that the quality of life diminishes dramatically and that can give personal experience of how that affects an individual because of the person they live with. I think that there is still some work to be done on that to try to ensure that we get some clarification from the Government as to what is being issued. Sign has said that they can't do anything because it's not on their agreement, but I think that it's something that the Scottish Government should be aware of and ask them to carry out some investigations or some work into the overall impact that patients suffer because of the lack of understanding. I would say mainly by GPs and mainly in the testing method that is being applied for patients who present with vitamin B12 deficiency. It would be useful to try and get some clarification, because the petitioner refers to the fact that the peace calves and IFABs in the conditions that present aren't always being taken into account when prescribing the course of treatment for a patient. It would be worthwhile to write to the Government to say, are they prepared to carry out some investigations that give us a clear indication of the benefits and the timescales that patients should be receiving regular injections? On that basis, I don't think that we can close it, because it sounds as though there is still some correspondence that we could be engaged in with the Government that would mean just putting this into the legacy paper and waiting on the correspondence coming back. So, on the basis of the questions that John wants to raise, are members happy that we do that and keep the petition open by putting it into the legacy paper? OK. Our next petition is PE1463 by Lorraine Cleaver on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. Members have notes from the clerk and the submissions that were received, and there have been a number of them following on from the last discussion that we had at committee. Elaine Smith, MSPs, is with us again. Elaine, do you want to make some comments before we deliberate on it? Thanks very much, convener. I would certainly want to comment on the proposals that are not to shut the petition. I would like to say that first of all, but to hopefully conclude it in the legacy paper, because I think that what the committee's hard work over this session has shown is on the earth a whole lot of problems that some of us knew were there, but there is now a lot of evidence, I think, to show this, that when the petitioner started, first of all, with the round-table discussion, it maybe wasn't quite clear about the problems involved with diagnosis and treatment of thyroid conditions. First of all, I would want to thank the committee for all of the timing deliberations and the way that the committee has looked into those issues and taken things at face value, but I have dug deeper into some of those issues. I also want to thank the petitioner, Lorraine Cleaver, for all her hard work and for sticking with the petition. It is quite a hard thing to do sometimes when you are not feeling particularly great yourself at times, so thanks to Lorraine Cleaver for that. I think that you have a lot of submissions following the last meeting, but one of the most significant ones is probably the one that you have from Lynn Minot. Perhaps one of the most significant things that comes from that is that the trials that were mentioned are old trials. They also maybe do not tell you how much of the T4 and T3 were trialled on people. If you add up everybody who was trialled, I think that Lynn is saying that it comes to less than their survey. The bottom line for me, after all of this, is that a lot more work needs to be done on this. I would certainly, if re-elected to Parliament, it would be something that I personally wish to pursue much further. I think that the bottom line is that we are not listening to patients who have taken a very clinical approach to this issue. There are so many people affected by it. There are so many different ways that people are affected. They may not even know that they are not put on T4. They are told that that is you fine, your blood is fine, and they may not understand that the fibromyalgia that they are suffering, that the hair loss that they are suffering, the continued tiredness that they are suffering, the symptoms that I could go on, with a host of things, the depression, the cholesterol, all of those things can be related back to the fact that the T4 actually isn't fully working for them. What that does is it takes people out, if you just want to look at it in bold economic terms, it takes people out of being economically active if they are not well. It also means that the NHS is frankly wasting a lot of money on tests, on treatments for things that could be sorted out if the patient was given the right thyroid medicine. That is in your conclusions, but if it is in the legacy paper, all your hard work is then passed on to the next petitions committee. Colleagues of any views, I have to say that I am very sympathetic to the points that Elaine has made. You need to pursue that. The evidence session that we had at our last meeting, although I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the minister came to be as comprehensive in engaging with the issue as she possibly could be, but she needs to be careful of the officials that she brings with her, because they raise more issues than they clarified. On that basis, we have a lot of work still to do on that petition. Jackson, do you want to do that? I echo that point, convener. It is interesting reading the submissions since the evidence session, because they are among the strongest that I have seen submitted following an evidence session that we have taken. They are from individuals about who all express very much a similar although a variable at the same time point of view as to the way in which the evidence was presented to us. Unfortunately, the more we hear, the less certain we are about terribly much. Other than that, as Elaine Smith said, there is a continuing issue here that the committee will have to try and dig further into in the new Parliament. I think that it will be worthwhile to consider how that might be done, because we have now had several evidence sessions on the subject. I do not think that we are satisfied, but we will need to be clear as to how we dig down to get to where we think that we might be able to make a further positive contribution. I think that there is still work for a petitions committee to take forward on that. There is no danger that we are going to close this petition. I think that we put it in our legacy paper and we continue to ask the questions that are relevant based on the submissions that we continue to have, the questions that keep arising and the information that Elaine Smith is giving us again this morning. We will take it forward in that way. I think that there is a lot of merit in the suggestion from the petitioner that the next committee may wish to take evidence from Dr John Midgley, who has already submitted evidence on a number of occasions to the committee. I would like to see that included in the legacy paper as a decision for the next committee, but I think that they should seriously consider it. I think that everyone has agreed on that. We will put the petition in our legacy paper and ask the next petitions committee to continue looking into it. Thanks again, Elaine, for that and for all those who continue to contribute to the petition and keep updating us and asking the questions, because we need to get to the bottom of this. Thanks very much to everyone. Our next petition is PE1568 by Catherine Hughes on funding, access and promotion of NHS Centre for Integrative Care. Elaine Smith, are you staying with us for this one? To be honest, convener, I was just going to listen to the committee what you thought yourself about the evidence session and how you were intending to take it forward. I think that it should be included in the legacy paper, but my own view is that, quite clearly, the patient-centredness, in fact, it says it on page 3 of your paper. It is to do with Dr Harpreet Coley's comments where he says that it was not a needed decision for both members to make because treatments with Coley's strategy were in dissonance. The evidence that we have about the effectiveness of intervention of the patient-centredness, I think that that is the bottom line. The patients were very clear that this was a service that was very much helping and they wanted to keep when you look at the survey that was done, but the decision was made not on what the patients felt what the patients wanted and, personally, I think in the long run that it is the wrong decision. It is not just about homeopathic. It is far from it. It is the centre for integrative care and it is much more than arguments about whether homeopathy works or it does not. It is about patients and how they feel as well. To my mind, it is coming down to short-term savings, but it will cost a lot in the long term. I agree with Elaine Smith on the issue that I would like to see put in her legacy paper, because there are a number of decisions still to be made by Glasgow and Clyde health board, but particularly in terms of Lanarkshire health board's decision and the way they made the decision has come under some scrutiny. While we were assured that patients would continue to receive a level of care commenced out with their illness, there is, I believe, a letter in today's herald that raises the issue about someone who had initially tried to be referred to CIC taking eight months to then be referred on to a consultant to be dealt with. Clearly, if we are talking about patient-centred care, then if the patients feel that they benefit from going to CIC, then given that Lanarkshire health board has taken a decision to withdraw supported funding for any future patients, it raises questions about the quality of care patients that they receive and their confidence in the treatment that they receive. There are some interesting submissions that, like the last petition, there have been some interesting follow-up submissions made and some analysis that goes into the cost benefits of particular homeopathic treatments and gives a startling indication of the savings that are being made, not that could be made, but that are being made in terms of the NHS. More work can be done on that, and I would certainly be keen to pass on some of the submissions that we have received to the Scottish Government and to NHS Scotland to ask them their views on the fact and to try to disprove some of the evidence that we have received for today's meeting and to give us clear indications. If we continue to rely on health boards funding CIC, then the danger is that it could always be pulled at any time when health boards decide no longer to send patients to that centre. It is about trying to preserve a centre that is delivering for the whole of Scotland, but we are relying on one health board to potentially pick up the cost for that. Clearly, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board might at some point make a decision to withdraw those services for patients who feel that they would benefit from that treatment. Dr Colleen made a very gallant case for why the decision was made. However, one thing that I failed to quite grasp was the fact that they all agreed that the patients were actually happy with the service that they were receiving to me that overturns any other type of discussion or agreement because they are there to provide a service and if the people are happy with the service they are receiving, why are we closing it and why are we not letting people use it? I just couldn't fathom that bit out that why are we ignoring the patients who are actually using the service and are in fact happy with the service. Very few patients today are happy with the service they receive, but here is a clear indication of people are happy with the service and despite that fact, we choose to ignore that fact and I think that that is wrong. I think that it was another slightly unsatisfactory evidence session and it was difficult not to arrive at the conclusion, as Sons Allamanic has said, that there were cost factors that were motivating it. Underpinning that bluntly and although nobody will actually use the language as such, I am very much left with the impression that for some people you might as well be banging voodoo drums, that is their underlying belief. So they set aside, because it is inconvenient, the patient response, which apparently is of a much higher level of satisfaction than in many other areas of traditional healthcare. The difficulty in all of this, I think, is that at some point unless the Scottish Government is going to take a national view as to what role it believes complementary medicine in its broadest sense plays within the NHS, then the health boards, which are charged with making the decision, look to me to be inexorably moving towards a position where this service will not be provided. So I think that carrying it forward in the legacy paper, and we do want to see what the outcome of the current review is, but I do think that after that it may very well be that this is a subject in its holistic sense that we should be referring to the Health and Sport Committee of the new Parliament as one that they may want to consider as worthy of a more serious look in the context of a broader healthcare policy, because I do not know how much further we will be able to take the issue at that point. I agree with that. I think that there is a large body of work that the Health and Sport Committee could look at, but I think that this committee has had questions raised because of the evidence that we have heard. There is nothing that we can do about it in the short term that is left available to us, but I think that it has to be in our legacy paper so that it remains on the open to the next petitions committee to look at it. In putting it into the legacy paper, I think that we also have to suggest that they might consider an early course bringing the next Cabinet Secretary for Health in front of them to ask some of those pertinent questions, because we just did not get a satisfactory outcome from our deliberations at the last meeting that raised more questions than answers. I think that there is a real amount of work that the petitions committee still has to do, as well as indicating that this is an issue that I think that the Health and Sport Committee needs to be mindful of as well and start to consider it, because I think that there are huge implications around that. I can be corrected if I am wrong in this assumption, but my understanding is that CIC was also supposed to become the national pain clinic for treatment. It does raise other issues. It is not just about alternative treatments or homeopathic treatments. It is about trying to build a centre of excellence that can deal with patients from throughout Scotland, because we have heard before that in terms of pain treatment, some patients were being sent south of the border to Bath for treatment, and the idea was to have a centre in Scotland, and CIC has been put forward as the possible centre for that. The overall funding difficulty is that if we do not get NHS Scotland to take a national view on CIC, we could end up with other services being impacted upon, and other vital services that people are looking for in relation to pain control and other treatments. It would be useful if we could get the Scottish Government to give a clear indication of what funding it is intending to put into CIC in the future, so that we do not, as I said earlier, rely on health boards making arbitrary decisions about withdrawing funding for treatment, which might impact on other delivery methods that are potentially going to be carried through CIC. In response to John Wilson, the one thing that I think that we gleaned from the evidence session was that the national pain relief centre was not contingent on the centre for integrative care. It seemed to me that there was a clear distinction in the minds of the witnesses between the two, but, nonetheless, I think that the fact that they cohabit a space raised those questions in terms of how all that would function. Although I agree with Jackson Carlaw that the witnesses told us on the day that it would not be contingent on it, I would like to see that in black and white from the Scottish Government to say that it would not be contingent and the funding would be made available from a national funding source rather than relying once again on individual NHS boards contributing to the delivery of that service, because it is about ensuring that those services are maintained in a way that is satisfactory for the patients and not relying on individual health boards withdrawing funding at a later stage. That's a very valid point. If you're going to have only one centre in the whole of Scotland, which is to serve the whole of Scotland, you can't then have one local health board footing the bill for that and hoping that other health boards will make a contribution that has to be funded properly. I think that we also need to get clarification on just exactly this connection between the pain centre and the integrative care centre. My understanding is that one is going to be at Gatt Naval and the other is at one of the other facilities, so there might not be the same facilities, so we need to get clarification around that and where the funding is going to come for those services. On that point, convener, I think that there was a bit of worry, too, that the national pain centre might be instead of the centre for integrative care, so that's another issue. We need to get clarification on exactly where that is, and that requires us to keep the petition open and pursue it. As I said, there have been a number of suggestions this morning about communications that we need to make and about what to suggest to the petitions committee in the next session in our legacy paper, and we'll include all of them in the legacy paper. Our next two petitions will be taken together—again, sorry, thanks Elaine for your contribution on that. Our next two petitions will be taken together. They are PE1480 by Amanda Coppell on behalf of the Frank Coppell's Alzheimer's Awareness campaign, Alzheimer's and dementia awareness, and PE1533 by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland Against the Care Tax on Abolition and Non-Residential Social Care Chargers for Older and Disabled People. Again, we've had some correspondence on this, and members have the briefing from the clerk on it. Again, I think that this is one that's going to continue to require our attention, so we can take on board all of the points made by the petitioners and their submissions and pass this to the next committee. Is that okay? The next petition is PE1495 by Rob Wilson on behalf of Accountability Scotland on the use of gagging clauses and agreements with NHS staff in Scotland. Members have any views on what we do with this one? Is there anything that we can usefully do to take it forward? I see people shaking their heads, so I just don't think there's anything else that we can do to address this one while we close it on that bank. Our next petition is PE1571 by John Beattie on footbank funding. I think that the response is very clear, but this is again an on-going issue. Are the welfare committee aware of this one? I mean, they will be looking at these issues on an on-going basis, so we can just pass it on to them. I agree that we can pass it on to the welfare committee and ask them to include it in their legacy paper, because I think that it's an issue that's going to continue particularly when we're getting other powers transferred to the Scottish Government that would be useful if the welfare committee, if they're continuing into the next session, passes it on for their consideration. We need to check to see whether the welfare committee has drawn up its legacy paper. It might be too late to include it. If that's the case, we could keep a hold of it in our legacy paper with the suggestion that it goes to the welfare committee at some point in the next session. Our next petition is PE1592 by Shaheen McWade on group piece, strep, information and testing. I'm still not satisfied that we've had an outcome that addresses the petitioner. The reason why this petition came back was because an earlier petition was closed on the basis that we were going to get an outcome. This petition is on the basis that we still await that outcome. I would like to suggest that we put this into our legacy paper so that it doesn't drop off the agenda again. Members agree with that? Our next petition is PE1593 by Paul Quickly on behalf of fans against criminalisation on a fuel review of the offensive behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Scotland Act. We received responses back from those we contacted and we've also had a submission from fans against criminalisation on whose behalf Paul Quickly brought the petition. I think that there is still a lot of work to be done in relation to looking into this even as late as this morning. There has been some information supplied in the national newspaper and it includes a letter signed by a host of organisations that continue to have concerns over individuals and organisations across a whole swath of Scottish society. I think that it would be remiss of us to say that there isn't some work still to be done in respect to this and on a personal level. I was very disappointed with the response that was received from the minister in respect of one particular issue. It is personal to me and I have to raise it because it reflects on something that he maintains in his letter. When he made a statement to the Parliament about the review, he made a claim that one aspect of it in terms of rehabilitation of offenders, which he claimed in his statement, had the support of the fans groups who were opposed to the legislation. His wording was very careful, but he continues when asked about the claim and the connection that he makes between what he was putting forward and his claim that fans against criminalisation endorsed that proposal. His wording is carefully chosen in order to allow him to make that claim. In the debate that followed the statement, I asked a very specific question in relation to that. In response to my question, the minister went away from his carefully crafted words and made a very clear statement that fans against criminalisation fully endorsed his position. When people challenged that assertion, he refers to the comments that he made in his statement, but he ignores the comments that he made to me. I find that unacceptable. People are challenging on the basis of what he said in the chamber and he continues to maintain that he did not say something that he said. I find that totally unacceptable on a personal level. I just want to make that absolutely clear. Based on all the information that we have had, further information that was submitted this morning, the views of the whole host of people in wider society, we have to pass that to the next petitions committee to continue to look at it in my view. Jackson? I am just going to posit a contrary view just for discussion's sake. I am opposed to this act. My party is committed to its abolition, but the petition asks us to urge the Scottish Government to hold a full and comprehensive review, and we have a letter from the minister that says that the Scottish Government will not be undertaking a review. I am not sure on that basis, given such a definitive response from the Government, whether that rests still with us as a petitions committee or whether it enters into the wider political domain of debate. That is where I am slightly unsure as to whether maintaining the petition is the correct thing to do in those circumstances, convener, but I am open to persuasion. On the other colleagues' views—at least one of the issues that the minister responded to, I would like to get clarification, but the submission from fans against criminalisation challenges a lot of what has been said by Police Scotland and the minister. We would be entitled to go back and ask them for clarification on those points. That is how the committee would look at an issue. If new issues are raised or if points are made by those who we contact and their responses in that correspondence, raise other questions. I think that the committee has gone back and asked for clarification on those points. If we take all the items that fans against criminalisation highlighted in respect of filming of fans, the treatment of fans and various other aspects of the issue, more points have been raised and it would be normal practice for us to continue a petition in order to pursue those questions. It is always worse than it might be unfair to single out one individual—I will not name the individual—but one of the people who signed the letter asking for a review in the newspaper this morning is one of the academics who took part in the study, which has now been claimed to be the review on which the issue has been upheld. If even people who participated in looking at the issue think that there has to be a review, I think that it would be remiss of us not to continue to ask that question. I think that it is not unreasonable for the petition to ask for the review that they have, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding of the whole bill. I have met a lot of constituents who have said to me that the bill is not designed to have the fact that it is supposed to have designed for. There is a lot of confusion and there is a lot of hardship being suffered by people. I think that on the basis of the fact that people are suffering hardship, that in itself says to me that we really need to have a look at this again. To be frank, I do not want to go into the integrity of who said what to whom. I think that what is more important for my constituents is that they are going to be treated fairly or not. The perception there is that they are not. That needs to be addressed. I think that it is absolutely essential that we carry this forward in our legacy so that we continue to pursue this issue. If any citizens of Scotland feel that they are being treated unfairly, we need to address that. I will put it to the committee that we have debated a number of petitions this morning where there are still outstanding questions. We have had clear answers from Government bodies, the Government of Ministers themselves, who have said no to a particular request, but we have continued to take an interest in it because questions have continued to arise. I would suggest, without prejudging what the next committee would do, that we should at least ensure that they have a chance to look at this and that the responses to the questions that have been raised in the submissions be allowed to come back to the committee before they decide to either pass it on to someone else or close the petition. John Swinney? I think that there is a lot of logic in what Jackson says. Equally, I am relaxed. It does though seem to me that we have come to the end of the road to some extent and what we can do. The minister is quite clear that there is no room going to be any review by the Government. Equally, notwithstanding what you have said, convener, the minister denies that and without going back and forward, as others have said, who said what. Equally, it is clearly still an issue that is running. It is going to be something that people have chosen to make an election issue and we will see what the outcome is coming. It might then be that the committee will seek to raise it, or it might be that it will not. I would be relaxed about it being in the legacy paper, but I would be very reluctant to see what any further enquiries work that we can take, because I do not think that there is anyone that we can go to that is not going to say—I have told you before—that we are not reviewing it again and equally I stand by what I have said in Parliament or whatever, but continuing it in the legacy paper is perfectly acceptable to me. Thank you. I am opposed to the way that legislation is being carried out. I know that Mr MacAskill might have other views on that, but the reality for me is that it should be in the legacy paper. Convener, I would go slightly further than saying that it should be in the legacy paper, because clearly, as you have indicated from the responses that we have received this morning, but also from the petitioner's submission, where he cites one of the authors of the review document, it is quite clear that the issues still are rising about the way that review has been used by the Government. Although the Government says that it is not prepared to carry out any further work on it, the committees of this Parliament have a duty and a responsibility and a right to carry out their own scrutiny of legislation and how legislation has been carried out. If Jackson Carlaw would let me finish, the committee previously undertook an inquiry into child sexual exploitation, an issue that could have been passed on to another committee of this Parliament, but the Public Petitions Committee, under the convenership of David Stewart, decided to take forward its own inquiry and make recommendations to the Scottish Government. I would say that this issue might be an issue that, if we include it in the legacy paper to the next committee, suggests to them that if no other committee or the Government are not prepared to carry out a review, then this committee should be advised or recommended that the issue may want to carry out a review of this legislation as a committee and basically do the same as what it did with petition 1393 and bring in the witnesses and others to form a basis of recommendations to the Scottish Government. As has been said, it is not up to the Government, it is up to this Parliament to have to re-institute the right to make the Government accountable for the legislation that it puts through and how that legislation is being delivered and how it seems to be delivered in society. I think that there is something stronger that we can actually say, and that would be to make the recommendation that forms part of our legacy paper but also with the view that we could potentially carry out, the committee would carry out its own inquiry into this issue so that we can once and for all get some resolution to the issues that have been raised and a proper scrutiny of legislation that seemed to be detrimental to a number of people in society. The member is happy that we at least leave it in the legacy paper and let the next committee have a look at it. I think that we have got an agreement. Even if it is not entirely enthusiastic, we will put it into the legacy paper. Our final petition today, PE 1594, by Richard Burton on behalf of Accountability Scotland on the specification of lying as an example of public maladministration. Members think that we need to do anything else with this. Can I just close it? There is no other value in it at all. Basist at line is already considered to follow in the definition of maladministration by the SPSO and the Scottish Government. It is not minded to create a statutory definition of maladministration because it may unduly restrict the SPSO's role and function. That is worth having on the record. I thank you very much for putting that there. We can close agenda item 2 and close the meeting to the public. We have all deserted us anyway. We are going to private session in order to discuss our legacy paper.